AI Code Editor Online Free

AI Code Editor Online Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Cloud management

  Cloud management refers to the administration and oversight of cloud computing products and services. Public clouds are managed by cloud service providers, which operate the underlying infrastructure such as servers, storage, networking, and data center facilities. Users may also opt to manage their public cloud services with a third-party cloud management tool. Users of public cloud services can generally select from three basic cloud provisioning categories: User self-provisioning: Customers purchase cloud services directly from the provider, typically through a web form or console interface. The customer pays on a per-transaction basis. Advanced provisioning: Customers contract in advance a predetermined amount of resources, which are prepared in advance of service. The customer pays a flat fee or a monthly fee. Dynamic provisioning: The provider allocates resources when the customer needs them, then decommissions them when they are no longer needed. The customer is charged on a pay-per-use basis. Managing a private cloud requires software tools to help create a virtualized pool of compute resources, provide a self-service portal for end users and handle security, resource allocation, tracking and billing. Management tools for private clouds tend to be service driven, as opposed to resource driven, because cloud environments are typically highly virtualized and organized in terms of portable workloads. In hybrid cloud environments, compute, network and storage resources must be managed across multiple domains, so a good management strategy should start by defining what needs to be managed, and where and how to do it. Policies to help govern these domains should include configuration and installation of images, access control, and budgeting and reporting. Access control often includes the use of Single sign-on (SSO), in which a user logs in once and gains access to all systems without being prompted to log in again at each of them. == Characteristics of Cloud Management == Cloud management combines software and technologies in a design for managing cloud environments. Software developers have responded to the management challenges of cloud computing with a variety of cloud management platforms and tools. These tools include native tools offered by public cloud providers as well as third-party tools designed to provide consistent functionality across multiple cloud providers. Administrators must balance the competing requirements of efficient consistency across different cloud platforms with access to different native functionality within individual cloud platforms. The growing acceptance of public cloud and increased multicloud usage is driving the need for consistent cross-platform management. Rapid adoption of cloud services is introducing a new set of management challenges for those technical professionals responsible for managing IT systems and services. Cloud-management platforms and tools should have the ability to provide minimum functionality in the following categories. Functionality can be both natively provided or orchestrated via third-party integration. Provisioning and orchestration: create, modify, and delete resources as well as orchestrate workflows and management of workloads Automation: Enable cloud consumption and deployment of app services via infrastructure-as-code and other DevOps concepts Security and compliance: manage role-based access of cloud services and enforce security configurations Service request: collect and fulfill requests from users to access and deploy cloud resources. Monitoring and logging: collect performance and availability metrics as well as automate incident management and log aggregation Inventory and classification: discover and maintain pre-existing brownfield cloud resources plus monitor and manage changes Cost management and optimization: track and rightsize cloud spend and align capacity and performance to actual demand Migration, backup, and DR: enable data protection, disaster recovery, and data mobility via snapshots and/or data replication Organizations may group these criteria into key use cases including Cloud Brokerage, DevOps Automation, Governance, and Day-2 Life Cycle Operations. Enterprises with large-scale cloud implementations may require more robust cloud management tools which include specific characteristics, such as the ability to manage multiple platforms from a single point of reference, or intelligent analytics to automate processes like application lifecycle management. High-end cloud management tools should also have the ability to handle system failures automatically with capabilities such as self-monitoring, an explicit notification mechanism, and include failover and self-healing capabilities. == Multi-Cloud and Hybrid Cloud Management Challenges == Legacy management infrastructures, which are based on the concept of dedicated system relationships and architecture constructs, are not well suited to cloud environments where instances are continually launched and decommissioned. Instead, the dynamic nature of cloud computing requires monitoring and management tools that are adaptable, extensible and customizable. Cloud computing presents a number of management challenges. Companies using public clouds do not have ownership of the equipment hosting the cloud environment, and because the environment is not contained within their own networks, public cloud customers do not have full visibility or control. Users of public cloud services must also integrate with an architecture defined by the cloud provider, using its specific parameters for working with cloud components. Integration includes tying into the cloud APIs for configuring IP addresses, subnets, firewalls and data service functions for storage. Because control of these functions is based on the cloud provider’s infrastructure and services, public cloud users must integrate with the cloud infrastructure management. Capacity management is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments because end users have the ability to deploy applications using self-service portals. Applications of all sizes may appear in the environment, consume an unpredictable amount of resources, then disappear at any time. A possible solution is profiling the applications impact on computational resources. As result, the performance models allow the prediction of how resource utilization changes according to application patterns. Thus, resources can be dynamically scaled to meet the expected demand. This is critical to cloud providers that need to provision resources quickly to meet a growing demand by their applications. Charge-back—or, pricing resource use on a granular basis—is a challenge for both public and private cloud environments. Charge-back is a challenge for public cloud service providers because they must price their services competitively while still creating profit. Users of public cloud services may find charge-back challenging because it is difficult for IT groups to assess actual resource costs on a granular basis due to overlapping resources within an organization that may be paid for by an individual business unit, such as electrical power. For private cloud operators, charge-back is fairly straightforward, but the challenge lies in guessing how to allocate resources as closely as possible to actual resource usage to achieve the greatest operational efficiency. Exceeding budgets can be a risk. Hybrid cloud environments, which combine public and private cloud services, sometimes with traditional infrastructure elements, present their own set of management challenges. These include security concerns if sensitive data lands on public cloud servers, budget concerns around overuse of storage or bandwidth and proliferation of mismanaged images. Managing the information flow in a hybrid cloud environment is also a significant challenge. On-premises clouds must share information with applications hosted off-premises by public cloud providers, and this information may change constantly. Hybrid cloud environments also typically include a complex mix of policies, permissions and limits that must be managed consistently across both public and private clouds. == Cloud Management Platforms (CMP) == CMPs provide a means for a cloud service customer to manage the deployment and operation of applications and associated datasets across multiple cloud service infrastructures, including both on-premises cloud infrastructure and public cloud service provider infrastructure. In other words, CMPs provide management capabilities for hybrid cloud and multi-cloud environments. A cloud management platform (CMP) provides broad cloud management functionality atop both public cloud provider platforms and private cloud platforms. CMPs manage cloud services and resources that are distributed across multiple cloud platforms. The value of CMPs stands in delivering the maximum level of consistency between platforms without comp

  Read more →
• 

  Multistage interconnection networks

  Multistage interconnection networks (MINs) are a class of high-speed computer networks usually composed of processing elements (PEs) on one end of the network and memory elements (MEs) on the other end, connected by switching elements (SEs). The switching elements themselves are usually connected to each other in stages, hence the name. MINs are typically used in high-performance or parallel computing as a low-latency interconnection (as opposed to traditional packet switching networks), though they could be implemented on top of a packet switching network. Though the network is typically used for routing purposes, it could also be used as a co-processor to the actual processors for such uses as sorting; cyclic shifting, as in a perfect shuffle network; and bitonic sorting. == Background == Interconnection network are used to connect nodes, where nodes can be a single processor or group of processors, to other nodes. Interconnection networks can be categorized on the basis of their topology. Topology is the pattern in which one node is connected to other nodes. There are two main types of topology: static and dynamic. Static interconnect networks are hard-wired and cannot change their configurations. A regular static interconnect is mainly used in small networks made up of loosely couple nodes. The regular structure signifies that the nodes are arranged in specific shape and the shape is maintained throughout the networks. Some examples of static regular interconnections are: Completely connected network In a mesh network, multiple nodes are connected with each other. Each node in the network is connected to every other node in the network. This arrangement allows proper communication of the data between the nodes. But, there are a lot of communication overheads due to the increased number of node connections. Shared busThis network topology involves connection of the nodes with each other over a bus. Every node communicates with every other node using the bus. The bus utility ensures that no data is sent to the wrong node. But, the bus traffic is an important parameter which can affect the system. RingThis is one of the simplest ways of connecting nodes with each other. The nodes are connected with each other to form a ring. For a node to communicate with some other node, it has to send the messages to its neighbor. Therefore, the data message passes through a series of other nodes before reaching the destination. This involves increased latency in the system. TreeThis topology involves connection of the nodes to form a tree. The nodes are connected to form clusters and the clusters are in-turn connected to form the tree. This methodology causes increased complexity in the network. Hypercube This topology consists of connections of the nodes to form cubes. The nodes are also connected to the nodes on the other cubes. ButterflyThis is one of the most complex connections of the nodes. As the figure suggests, there are nodes which are connected and arranged in terms of their ranks. They are arranged in the form of a matrix. In dynamic interconnect networks, the nodes are interconnected via an array of simple switching elements. This interconnection can then be changed by use of routing algorithms, such that the path from one node to other nodes can be varied. Dynamic interconnections can be classified as: Single stage Interconnect Network Multistage interconnect Network Crossbar switch connections == Crossbar Switch Connections == In crossbar switch, there is a dedicated path from one processor to other processors. Thus, if there are n inputs and m outputs, we will need nm switches to realize a crossbar. As the number of outputs increases, the number of switches increases by factor of n. For large network this will be a problem. An alternative to this scheme is staged switching. == Single Stage Interconnect Network == In a single stage interconnect network, the input nodes are connected to output via a single stage of switches. The figure shows 88 single stage switch using shuffle exchange. As one can see, from a single shuffle, not all input can reach all output. Multiple shuffles are required for all inputs to be connected to all the outputs. == Multistage Interconnect Network == A multistage interconnect network is formed by cascading multiple single stage switches. The switches can then use their own routing algorithm, or be controlled by a centralized router, to form a completely interconnected network. Multistage Interconnect Network can be classified into three types: Non-blocking: A non-blocking network can connect any idle input to any idle output, regardless of the connections already established across the network. Crossbar is an example of this type of network. Rearrangeable non-blocking: This type of network can establish all possible connections between inputs and outputs by rearranging its existing connections. Blocking: This type of network cannot realize all possible connections between inputs and outputs. This is because a connection between one free input to another free output is blocked by an existing connection in the network. The number of switching elements required to realize a non-blocking network in highest, followed by rearrangeable non-blocking. Blocking network uses least switching elements. == Examples == Multiple types of multistage interconnection networks exist. === Omega network === An Omega network consists of multiple stages of 22 switching elements. Each input has a dedicated connection to an output. An NN omega network has log2(N) stages and N/2 switching elements in each stage for a perfect shuffle between stages. Thus the network has complexity of 0(N log(N)). Each switching element can employ its own switching algorithm. Consider an 88 omega network. There are 8! = 40320 1-to-1 mappings from input to output. There are 12 switching element for a total permutation of 2^12 = 4096. Thus, it is a blocking network. === Clos network === A Clos network uses 3 stages to switch from N inputs to N outputs. In the first stage, there are r= N/n crossbar switches and each switch is of size nm. In the second stage there are m switches of size rr and finally the last stage is a mirror of the first stage with r switches of size mn. A clos network will be completely non-blocking if m >= 2n-1. The number of connections, though more than omega network is much less than that of a crossbar network. === Beneš network === A Beneš network is a rearrangeably non-blocking network derived from the clos network by initializing n = m = 2. There are (2log2(N) - 1) stages, with each stage containing N/2 22 crossbar switches. An 88 Beneš network has 5 stages of switching elements, and each stage has 4 switching elements. The center three stages has two 44 benes network. The 44 Beneš network, can connect any input to any output recursively.

  Read more →
• 

  Social trading

  Social trading is a form of investing that allows investors to observe the trading behavior of their peers and expert traders. The primary objective is to follow their investment strategies using copy trading or mirror trading. Social trading requires little or no knowledge about financial markets. == History == One of the first social trading platforms was Collective2] which began offering a social trading functionality to retail traders as early as 2003 (preceding ZuluTrade by four years). In 2010, social trading started to achieve a greater degree of mainstream appeal with eToro, followed by Wikifolio in 2012. Europe-based NAGA, listed on Frankfurt Stock Exchange since 2017, claims more than EUR 27 billion was traded on its platform in the second half of 2019. Some of the other contemporary social trading platforms and tech providers are Trading Motion, Brokeree Solutions, iSystems, and FX Junction, among others. === Research === MIT Computer Scientist and researcher Yaniv Altshuler described social trading networks as complex adaptive systems, and in his 2014 research on eToro's OpenBook, wrote that "Having the inherent ability to share ideas and information between each others, OpenBook's users are given a new source of information they can use in order to enhance their trading performance. As the users are not playing against each other but rather – against the market, this situation becomes a non zero-sum game, hence incentivizing the users to share as much information as possible." His paper concludes that "social trading provides much better opportunities for profiting compared with individual trading," but that users make "excellent but sometimes not optimal decisions in selecting experts when they can see others' choices." A 2015 World Economic Forum report described social trading networks as disruptors, which "have emerged to provide low-cost, sophisticated alternatives to traditional wealth managers. These solutions cater to a broader customer base and empower customers to have more control of their wealth management," and "pose a tangible threat to the traditional practices of the wealth management industry". Economist Nouriel Roubini's thinktank predicted in 2016 that "newer forms of investment, such as socially responsible investments and social trading will bring some of the largest industry growth in the coming years." A 2017 St. John's University study found that 'leader' traders, or those with followers, are more susceptible to the disposition effect than investors that are not being followed by any other traders, with the authors suggesting the observation may be explained by "leaders feeling responsible towards their followers and an urge to not let them down, by fear of losing followers when admitting a bad investment decision and signaling confidence in their initial investment choice, or by an attempt of newly appointed leaders to manage their self-image." Social trading may potentially also change how much risk investors take. A recent experimental study argues that merely providing information on the success of others may lead to a significant increase in risk taking. This increase in risk taking may even be larger when subjects are provided with the option to directly copy others. == Characteristics == Social trading is an alternative way of analyzing financial data by looking at what other traders are doing and comparing and copying their techniques and strategies. Prior to the advent of social trading, investors and traders were relying on fundamental or technical analysis to form their investment decisions. Using social trading investors and traders could integrate into their investment decision-process social indicators from trading data-feeds of other traders. Social trading platforms or networks can be considered a subcategory of social networking services. Social trading allows traders to trade online with the help of others and some have claimed shortens the learning curve from novice to experienced trader. Traders can interact with others, watch others take trades, then duplicate their trades and learn what prompted the top performer to take a trade in the first place. By copying trades, traders can learn which strategies work and which do not work. Social trading is used to do speculation; in the moral context speculative practices are considered negatively and to be avoided by each individual. who conversely should maintain a long-term horizon avoiding any types of short term speculation. Social Media has permeated the trading world such that two main types of trading has evolved: Traditional Trades Single (or non-social) trade: Trader A places a normal trade by himself or herself; This can by manual or automated Social Trading There are two main types of social trading: Copy trade: Trader A places exactly the same trade as trader B's one single trade; (iii) Mirror trade: Trader A automatically executes trader B's every single trade, i.e., trader A follows exactly trader B's trading activities. Other variations offered on some platforms allow users to copy another trader's portfolio (copy portfolio), and follow a trader's dividends (copy dividends), where whenever a followed trader withdraws money from his or her account, a proportional amount of money will be withdrawn from the balance of their follower, in real time. === Key features === Information flow: Unencumbered access to information is important in financial markets and that makes the free exchange of information of interest to small scale as well as individual investors. Cooperative trading: Social trading offers traders the opportunity to work together in trading teams which can trade the markets collaboratively, whether by pooling funds, dividing research or through sharing information. Monetization: As with social networks in the broader sense, monetization strategies are not always clear. As with social networks in general, it is possible, however, that the long-term worth of such websites may come from the variety and depth of data about their users which their active communities are likely to generate. Transparency: Social trading platforms reveal traders' performance stats, open and past positions, and market sentiment, giving members complete information to assess the credibility of the contributors they follow on the platform.

  Read more →
• 

  Cryptochannel

  In telecommunications, a cryptochannel is a complete system of crypto-communications between two or more holders or parties. It includes: (a) the cryptographic aids prescribed; (b) the holders thereof; (c) the indicators or other means of identification; (d) the area or areas in which effective; (e) the special purpose, if any, for which provided; and (f) pertinent notes as to distribution, usage, etc. A cryptochannel is analogous to a radio circuit.

  Read more →
• 

  Ed (chatbot)

  Ed was a chatbot co-developed by the Los Angeles Unified School District and AllHere Education. Described as a learning acceleration platform, it was the first personal assistant for students in the United States. Part of the district's Individual Acceleration Plan, it was able to interact with students both verbally and visually, offering support in 100 languages. The chatbot was launched on March 20, 2024, as part of the district's plan for academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and to improve overall academic performance. Utilizing artificial intelligence, Ed organizes data and reports on grades, test scores, and attendance, creating individualized plans for each student. After the company behind it, AllHere, collapsed, the district shuttered operations of the chatbot on June 14, 2024. The firm is under investigation by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. == History == On February 14, 2022, Alberto M. Carvalho became the Superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, pledging to give the district a full academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2022, he announced the Individual Acceleration Plan for the district, which aimed to provide each student with a unique progress report and help them determine if they were on track to graduate. The district faced criticism from disability advocates for its management of Individualized Education Programs, and in April 2022, the United States Department of Education announced that the district had failed to provide appropriate educational services to students with disabilities during the pandemic. The district had been grappling with significant absenteeism issues since the pandemic, which led to declining academic performance and disengagement among students. On February 17, 2023, the district issued a request for proposals to develop a fully integrated portal system. Later that year, they signed a $6 million, five-year contract with AllHere Education, a Boston-based company founded in 2016. The introduction of Ed follows the public launch of ChatGPT, which has been utilized by both teachers and students in educational settings. On August 4, 2023, during an annual address at the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Carvalho and the Los Angeles Unified School District announced the launch of Ed. The district invested $4 million into the chatbot, with Carvalho noting that this cost would be halved thanks to donor and grant funding. The chatbot was launched on March 20, 2024. Following its launch, a press conference was held to address security and technology concerns. Carvalho stated that the district had collaborated with security companies and incorporated filters to screen for threatening language. Months after its launch, AllHere Education furloughed most of its staff on June 14, citing their “current financial position” on its website as the reason. After learning about the furlough, the district terminated its dealings with AllHere Education. However, it stated its intention to bring the chatbot back in the future once officials determine the best course of action. Carvalho announced that he would appoint an independent task force to review what went wrong with AllHere Education and the chatbot. On February 25, 2026, the FBI served a search warrant on Carvalho’s home and office in connection with AllHere. The FBI also raided the LAUSD's headquarters. == Service == The chatbot was described as a personal assistant and a "one-stop shop for parents and students" who want to see information about a student's attendance and grades, as well as other resources from the district. Additionally, the application can function as an alarm clock, provide daily lunch menus from the school cafeteria, and offer updates on the location of school buses. The chatbot also helps students and parents who do not speak English as their first language by translating displayed information into approximately 100 different languages. The application can also help with submitting applications and give updates on progress and upcoming assignments. The district stated that the primary goal of Ed was to actively motivate students to complete homework and other tasks. == Reception == The chatbot received a mostly positive reception among parents and observers upon its launch. Some parents and teachers expressed caution about the technology, voicing concerns that the district's push for its implementation lacked public accountability. Rob Nelson from the University of Pennsylvania described the district's strategy as risky, saying that the release felt "like the beginning of a Clippy-level disaster". After the chatbot's shutdown, The 74 criticized it for misusing student data. Chris Whiteley, a former software engineer at AllHere Education, alleged that the data collected by the chatbot likely violated the district's data privacy rules.

  Read more →
• 

  Cambridge Analytica

  Cambridge Analytica Ltd. (CA), previously known as SCL USA, was a British political consulting firm that came to prominence through the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. It was founded in 2013, as a subsidiary of the private intelligence company and self-described "global election management agency" SCL Group by long-time SCL executives Nigel Oakes, Alexander Nix and Alexander Oakes, with Nix as CEO. Cambridge Analytica was hired by a variety of political actors, including the Trinidadian government in 2010 and the 2016 presidential campaigns of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The firm maintained offices in London, New York City, and Washington, D.C. The company closed operations in 2018 due to backlash from the scandal, although firms related to both Cambridge Analytica and its parent firm SCL still exist. == History == Cambridge Analytica was founded in 2013 as a subsidiary of the private intelligence company SCL Group, which describes itself as providing "data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organisations worldwide". The company was part of "an international web of companies" headed by the London-based SCL Group. Cambridge Analytica (SCL USA) was incorporated in January 2013 with its registered office being in Westferry Circus, London and consisting of just one staff member, director and CEO Alexander Nix (also appointed in January 2015). Nix was also the director of nine similar companies sharing the same registered offices in London, including Firecrest technologies, Emerdata and six SCL Group companies including "SCL elections limited". Nigel Oakes, known as the former boyfriend of Lady Helen Windsor, had founded the predecessor SCL Group in the 1990s, and in 2005 Oakes established SCL Group together with his brother Alexander Oakes and Alexander Nix; SCL Group was the parent company of Cambridge Analytica. Former Conservative minister and MP Sir Geoffrey Pattie was the founding chairman of SCL; Lord Ivar Mountbatten also joined Oakes as a director of the company. As a result of the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, Nix was removed as CEO and replaced by Julian Wheatland before the company closed. Several of the company's executives were Old Etonians. The company's owners included several of the Conservative Party's largest donors such as billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz, former British Conservative minister Jonathan Marland, Baron Marland and the family of American hedge fund manager Robert Mercer. The company combined misappropriation of digital assets, data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis with strategic communication during electoral processes. While its parent SCL had focused on influencing elections in developing countries since the 1990s, Cambridge Analytica focused more on the western world, including the United Kingdom and the United States; CEO Alexander Nix has said CA was involved in 44 U.S. political races in 2014. In 2015, CA performed data analysis services for Ted Cruz's presidential campaign. In 2016, CA worked for Donald Trump's presidential campaign as well as for Leave.EU (one of the organisations campaigning in the United Kingdom's referendum on European Union membership). CA's role in those campaigns has been controversial and is the subject of ongoing inquiries in both countries. Political scientists question CA's claims about the effectiveness of its methods of targeting voters. == Data scandal == In March 2018, media outlets broke news of Cambridge Analytica's business practices. The New York Times and The Observer reported that the company had acquired and used personal data about Facebook users from an external researcher who had told Facebook he was collecting it for academic purposes. Shortly afterwards, Channel 4 News aired undercover investigative videos showing Nix boasting about using prostitutes, bribery sting operations, and honey traps to discredit politicians on whom it had conducted opposition research, and saying that the company "ran all of (Donald Trump's) digital campaign". In response to the media reports, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) of the UK pursued a warrant to search the company's servers. Facebook banned Cambridge Analytica from advertising on its platform, saying that it had been deceived. On 23 March 2018, the British High Court granted the ICO a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's London offices. As a result, Nix was suspended as CEO, and replaced by Julian Wheatland. The personal data of up to 87 million Facebook users were acquired via the 270,000 Facebook users who used a Facebook app created by Aleksandr Kogan called "This Is Your Digital Life". This was a personality profiling app and asked simple personality questions similar to other Facebook quizzes. Kogan was a scientist and psychologist, also being an employed lecturer for the University of Cambridge from 2012 to 2018. Alexander Nix claimed they had close to five thousand data points on each person who participated. They also gathered information through other data brokers ending with them acquiring millions of data points from American citizens. Kogan's app exploited a feature of Facebook's Graph API (version 1.0), which permitted any third-party app to access not only the app user's data, but also the full profile data of all of that user's Facebook friends, without those friends' knowledge or consent. This platform-wide design was available to all developers and was used by tens of thousands of apps; Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg later told the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the company was auditing "tens of thousands" of apps that had had access to large amounts of user data. Because the average Facebook user at the time had approximately 300 friends, the 270,000 users who installed Kogan's app yielded data on up to 87 million people. Facebook deprecated the friends-data API in April 2014 and shut it down entirely in April 2015, but data already collected by apps remained in developers' possession. Kogan passed this data to Cambridge Analytica, breaching Facebook's terms of service. On 1 May 2018, Cambridge Analytica and its parent company SCL filed for insolvency proceedings and closed operations. Alexander Tayler, a former director for Cambridge Analytica, was appointed director of Emerdata on 28 March 2018. Rebekah Mercer, Jennifer Mercer, Alexander Nix and Johnson Chun Shun Ko, who has links to American businessman Erik Prince, are in leadership positions at Emerdata. The Russo brothers are producing an upcoming film on Cambridge Analytica. In 2019 the Federal Trade Commission filed an administrative complaint against Cambridge Analytica for misuse of data. In 2020, the British Information Commissioner's Office closed a three-year inquiry into the company, concluded that Cambridge Analytica was "not involved" in the 2016 Brexit referendum and found no additional evidence for Russia's alleged interference during the campaign. US sensitive polling and election data, however, were passed to Russian Intelligence via a Cambridge Analytica contractor Sam Patten, Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, and Russian agent Konstantin Kilimnik, who was indicted during the affair. Publicly, parent company SCL Group called itself a "global election management agency", Politico reported it was known for involvement "in military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting". SCL gained work on a large number of campaigns for the US and UK governments' war on terror advancing their model of behavioral conflict during the 2000s. SCL's involvement in the political world has been primarily in the developing world where it has been used by the military and politicians to study and manipulate public opinion and political will. Slate writer Sharon Weinberger compared one of SCL's hypothetical test scenarios to fomenting a coup. Among the investors in Cambridge Analytica were some of the Conservative Party's largest donors such as billionaire Vincent Tchenguiz, former Conservative minister Jonathan Marland, Baron Marland, Roger Gabb, the family of American hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, and Steve Bannon. A minimum of 15 million dollars has been invested into the company by Mercer, according to The New York Times. Bannon's stake in the company was estimated at 1 to 5 million dollars, but he divested his holdings in April 2017 as required by his role as White House Chief Strategist. In March 2018, Jennifer Mercer and Rebekah Mercer became directors of Emerdata limited. In March 2018 it became public by Christopher Wylie, that Cambridge Analytica's first activities were founded on a data set, which its parent company SCL bought 2014 from a company named Global Science Research founded by Aleksandr Kogan and his team present across the world who worked as a psychologist at Cambridge. During Boris Johnson's tenure as foreign secretary, the Foreign Office sought advice from Cambridge Analytica and Boris Johnson had a meeting with Alexander N

  Read more →
• 

  Sex differences in social media use

  Men and women use social media in different ways and with different frequencies. In general, several researchers have found that women tend to use social network services (SNSs) more than men and primiarly to socialize. == Differences == === Predilection for usage === Many studies have found that women are more likely to use either specific SNSs such as Facebook or MySpace or SNSs in general. In 2015, 73% of online men and 80% of online women used social networking sites. The gap in gender differences has become less apparent in LinkedIn. In 2015 about 26 percent of online men and 25% of online women used the business-and employee-oriented networking site. Researchers who have examined the gender of users of multiple SNSs have found contradictory results. Hargittai's groundbreaking 2007 study examining race, gender, and other differences between undergraduate college student users of SNSs found that women were not only more likely to have used SNSes than men but that they were also more likely to have used many different services, including Facebook, MySpace, and Friendster; these differences persisted in several models and analyses. Although she only surveyed students at one institution – the University of Illinois at Chicago – Hargittai selected that institution intentionally as "an ideal location for studies of how different kinds of people use online sites and services." In contrast, data collected by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that men were more likely to have multiple SNS profiles. Although the sample sizes of the two surveys are comparable – 1,650 Internet users in the Pew survey compared with 1,060 in Hargittai's survey – the data from the Pew survey are newer and arguably more representative of the entire adult United States population. Pinterest, Facebook, and Instagram attract more females. Picture sharing sites overall are very popular among women. Pinterest alone attracts three times as many female users than male. However, use of Pinterest by men has increased from 5% in 2012. Facebook attracts about 77% of women online. Instagram is also more likely to attract women. Men are more likely to participate in online forums like Reddit, Digg or Slashdot. One in five men claim to be a part of an online forum. === Uses === In general, women seem to use SNSs more to explicitly foster social connections. A study conducted by Pew research centers found that women were more avid users of social media. In November 2010, the gap between men and women was as high as 15%. Female participants in a multi-stage study conducted in 2007 to discover the motivations of Facebook users scored higher on scales for social connection and posting of photographs. Studies have also been conducted on the differences between females and males with regards to blogging. The Pew Research Center found that younger females are more likely to blog than males their own age, even males that are older than them. Similarly, in a study of blogs maintained in MySpace, women were found to be more likely to not only write blogs but also write about family, romantic relationships, friendships, and health in those blogs. A study of Swedish SNS users found that women were more likely to have expressions of friendship, specifically in the areas of (a) publishing photos of their friends, (b) specifically naming their best friends, and (c) writing poems to and about their friends. Women were also more likely to have expressions related to family relationships and romantic relationships. One of the key findings of this research is that those men who do have expressions of romantic relationships in their profile had expressions just as strong as the women. However, the researcher speculated that this may be in part due to a desire to publicly express heterosexual behaviors and mannerisms instead of merely expressing romantic feelings. A large-scale study of gender differences in MySpace found that both men and women tended to have a majority of female Friends, and both men and women tended to have a majority of female "Top" Friends in the site. A later study found women to author disproportionately many (public) comments in MySpace, but an investigation into the role of emotion in public MySpace comments found that women both give and receive stronger positive emotion. It was hypothesised that women are simply more effective at using social networking sites because they are better able to harness positive emotion. A study focused on the influence of gender and personality on individuals' use of online social networking websites such as Facebook, reported that men use social networking sites with the intention of forming new relationships, whereas, women use them more for relationship maintenance. In addition to this, women are more likely to use Facebook or MySpace to compare themselves to others and also to search for information. Men, however, are more likely to look at other people's profiles with in the intention to find friends. Women were less successful at actually finding new friends, but more successful at "maintaining existing relationships, making new relationships, using for academic purposes and following specific agenda". Similarly, men also self-reported this motivation "while women reported using them more for relationship maintenance". === Personality === OCEAN personality traits are known to systematically vary between human males and females. In one study, the same women were more extraverted and agreeable, such as less neurotic while on social media than offline. Other studies associated neuroticism with female use of social media. === Privacy === Privacy has been the primary topic of many studies of SNS users, and many of these studies have found differences between male and female SNS users, although some studies have found results contradictory to those found in other studies. Some researchers have found that women are more protective of their personal information and more likely to have private profiles. Other researchers have found that women are less likely to post some types of information. Acquisti and Gross found that women in their sample were less likely to reveal their sexual orientation, personal address, or cell phone number. This is similar to Pew Internet & American Life research of children users of SNSs that found that boys and girls presented different views of privacy and behaviors, with girls being more concerned about and restrictive of information such as city, town, last name, and cell phone number that could be used to locate them. At least one group of researchers has found that women are less likely to share information that "identifies them directly – last name, cell phone number, and address or home phone number," linking that resistance to women's greater concerns about "cyberstalking", "cyberbullying", and security problems. Despite these concerns about privacy, researchers have found that women are more likely to maintain up-to-date photos of themselves. Further, Kolek and Saunders found in their sample of college student Facebook users that women were more likely to not only post a photograph of themselves in their profile but that they were more likely to have a publicly viewable Facebook account (a contradictory finding compared to many other studies), post photos, and post photo albums. Women were more likely to have: (a) a publicly viewable Facebook account, (b) more photo albums, (c) more photos, (d) a photo of themselves as their profile picture, (e) positive references to alcohol, partying, or drugs, and (f) more positive references to or about the institution or institution-related activities. In general, women were more likely to disclose information about themselves in their Facebook profile, with the primary exception of sharing their telephone number. Similarly, female respondents to Strano's study were more likely to keep their profile photo recent and choose a photo that made them appear attractive, happy, and fun-loving. Citing several examples, Strano opined that there may also be a difference in how men and women Facebook users display and interpret profile photos depicting relationships. Privacy has also been a concern for the SnapChat app, which allows you to send messages either text or photo or video which then disappear. One study has shown that security is not a major concern for the majority of users and that most do not use Snapchat to send sensitive content (although up to 25% may do so experimentally). As part of their research almost no statistically significant gender differences were found. === Cyberbullying === Past research carried out to investigate if there are any gender differences in cyber-bullying has found that boys commit more cyber verbal bullying, cyber forgery and more violence based on hidden identity or presenting themselves as other person. === Mansplaining === A 2021 article found that mansplaining could be seen more prominent online rather than offl

  Read more →
• 

  Malleability (cryptography)

  Malleability is a property of some cryptographic algorithms. An encryption algorithm is said to be malleable if it is possible to transform a ciphertext into another ciphertext which decrypts to a related plaintext. That is, given an encryption of a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} , it is possible to generate another ciphertext which decrypts to f ( m ) {\displaystyle f(m)} , for a known function f {\displaystyle f} , without necessarily knowing or learning m {\displaystyle m} . Malleability is often an undesirable property in a general-purpose cryptosystem, since it allows an attacker to modify the contents of a message. For example, suppose that a bank uses a stream cipher to hide its financial information, and a user sends an encrypted message containing, say, "TRANSFER $0000100.00 TO ACCOUNT #199." If an attacker can modify the message on the wire, and can guess the format of the unencrypted message, the attacker could change the amount of the transaction, or the recipient of the funds, e.g. "TRANSFER $0100000.00 TO ACCOUNT #227". Malleability does not refer to the attacker's ability to read the encrypted message. Both before and after tampering, the attacker cannot read the encrypted message. On the other hand, some cryptosystems are malleable by design. In other words, in some circumstances it may be viewed as a feature that anyone can transform an encryption of m {\displaystyle m} into a valid encryption of f ( m ) {\displaystyle f(m)} (for some restricted class of functions f {\displaystyle f} ) without necessarily learning m {\displaystyle m} . Such schemes are known as homomorphic encryption schemes. A cryptosystem may be semantically secure against chosen-plaintext attacks or even non-adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA1) while still being malleable. However, security against adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA2) is equivalent to non-malleability. == Example malleable cryptosystems == In a stream cipher, the ciphertext is produced by taking the exclusive or of the plaintext and a pseudorandom stream based on a secret key k {\displaystyle k} , as E ( m ) = m ⊕ S ( k ) {\displaystyle E(m)=m\oplus S(k)} . An adversary can construct an encryption of m ⊕ t {\displaystyle m\oplus t} for any t {\displaystyle t} , as E ( m ) ⊕ t = m ⊕ t ⊕ S ( k ) = E ( m ⊕ t ) {\displaystyle E(m)\oplus t=m\oplus t\oplus S(k)=E(m\oplus t)} . In the RSA cryptosystem, a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} is encrypted as E ( m ) = m e mod n {\displaystyle E(m)=m^{e}{\bmod {n}}} , where ( e , n ) {\displaystyle (e,n)} is the public key. Given such a ciphertext, an adversary can construct an encryption of m t {\displaystyle mt} for any t {\displaystyle t} , as E ( m ) ⋅ t e mod n = ( m t ) e mod n = E ( m t ) {\textstyle E(m)\cdot t^{e}{\bmod {n}}=(mt)^{e}{\bmod {n}}=E(mt)} . For this reason, RSA is commonly used together with padding methods such as OAEP or PKCS1. In the ElGamal cryptosystem, a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} is encrypted as E ( m ) = ( g b , m A b ) {\displaystyle E(m)=(g^{b},mA^{b})} , where ( g , A ) {\displaystyle (g,A)} is the public key. Given such a ciphertext ( c 1 , c 2 ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},c_{2})} , an adversary can compute ( c 1 , t ⋅ c 2 ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},t\cdot c_{2})} , which is a valid encryption of t m {\displaystyle tm} , for any t {\displaystyle t} . In contrast, the Cramer-Shoup system (which is based on ElGamal) is not malleable. In the Paillier, ElGamal, and RSA cryptosystems, it is also possible to combine several ciphertexts together in a useful way to produce a related ciphertext. In Paillier, given only the public key and an encryption of m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} and m 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}} , one can compute a valid encryption of their sum m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} . In ElGamal and in RSA, one can combine encryptions of m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} and m 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}} to obtain a valid encryption of their product m 1 m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}m_{2}} . Block ciphers in the cipher block chaining mode of operation, for example, are partly malleable: flipping a bit in a ciphertext block will completely mangle the plaintext it decrypts to, but will result in the same bit being flipped in the plaintext of the next block. This allows an attacker to 'sacrifice' one block of plaintext in order to change some data in the next one, possibly managing to maliciously alter the message. This is essentially the core idea of the padding oracle attack on CBC, which allows the attacker to decrypt almost an entire ciphertext without knowing the key. For this and many other reasons, a message authentication code is required to guard against any method of tampering. == Complete non-malleability == Fischlin, in 2005, defined the notion of complete non-malleability as the ability of the system to remain non-malleable while giving the adversary additional power to choose a new public key which could be a function of the original public key. In other words, the adversary shouldn't be able to come up with a ciphertext whose underlying plaintext is related to the original message through a relation that also takes public keys into account.

  Read more →
• 

  Pill reminder

  A pill reminder is any device that reminds users to take medications. Traditional pill reminders are pill containers with electric timers attached, which can be preset for certain times of the day to set off an alarm. More sophisticated pill reminders can also detect when they have been opened, and therefore when the user is away during the time they were supposed to take their medication, they will be reminded of it when they return. This reminder can be in the form of a light, which also helps for deaf or hearing-impaired users. == Mobile app == A newer type of pill reminder is a mobile app that reminds the owner to take the medication. Some of these applications might effectively support adherence to taking medications.

  Read more →
• 

  Trust federation

  A trust federation is part of the evolving Identity Metasystem that will bring a new layer of persistent identity and trusted data sharing to the Internet. Although the concept of trust federations is technology neutral, several protocols like SAML, OpenID, Information Card, XDI can handle the challenges of technical interoperability. The challenge of business and social interoperability requires a new type of cooperative association similar to a credit card association. Instead of banks, however, a trust federation is an alliance of i-brokers and their customers who agree to abide by a common set of agreements in the care and handling of customer data. A model for trust federations is offered by Open Identity Exchange and Kantara Initiative, which is applied in the U.S. Government ICAM Trust Framework. Some operational trust federations are: InCommon (academic, USA) REFEDs (Research and Education Federations, Europe) IGTF Interoperable Global Trust Federation Portalverbund Government Portal Federation, Austria Trust federations are not limited to the social web use case, but apply to all federations where trust in identity and compliance to other objectives of information security such as confidentiality, integrity and privacy is brokered.

  Read more →
• 

  Data marketplace

  Data marketplace is an online platform for sharing and consuming data in the form of data assets or data products. Part of the data management stack, it aims to bring together data producers and data consumers (including business users and AI) in a single space, with the objective of increasing access to understandable, high-quality data. Included within its Data Marketplaces and Exchange (DME) category by Gartner, data marketplaces can provide data internally within an organization, externally with partners, or as open data. == Concept == Digitization has dramatically increased data volumes within organizations, with IDC predicting that by 2025 the world will contain 175 zettabytes of data. This has created a need to both manage this data and provide access to it to enable business intelligence and data analysis. However, data is often scattered within multiple systems (such as data warehouses and data lakes), and is in formats that are only understandable by technical experts, such as data scientists. According to IDC, 81% of IT leaders cite data silos as a major barrier to digital transformation. This means that data is not freely available to business users or external audiences such as partners or citizens, limiting its value, and holding back AI deployments. Data marketplaces solve this issue, providing seamless, self-service access to high-quality data in an understandable, secure and auditable manner. They break down data silos, reduce friction in data access, and enable a broader range of users, including non-technical profiles, to find, understand, and consume data autonomously. Data assets on the marketplace can be raw data, data visualizations or data products. Data marketplaces combine data management functions such as data governance with the user-friendly experience offered by e-commerce marketplaces in order to increase the usage of data. These include features such as powerful search engines, feedback, ratings, subscriptions and product description sheets. According to Gartner, data marketplaces provide infrastructure, transactional capabilities, and services for both consumers and providers of data assets. == History and timeline == Data marketplaces have evolved since they first emerged in terms of both their scope and usage. === 2000s === With the rise of the internet, data brokers began collecting, aggregating, distributing and selling personal, financial and marketing data to third parties online. Data marketplaces were deployed to monetize this data, making it discoverable and accessible to users, either through subscriptions or one-off purchases. At the same time, regulations, such as the US Open Government Initiative of 2009 and others around the world mandated greater transparency and data sharing with the public. Data sharing portals were created by public and government bodies to make this information available through self-service to all users. === 2010s === Due to the growth of big data and cloud platforms, cloud-based data exchange platforms emerged. These were offered by major infrastructure providers, and included Amazon Web Services (AWS) Data Exchange, Snowflake Data Marketplace, and the Google Cloud Platform. These platforms moved beyond simple data brokerage or open data by providing structured, catalogued data sharing between organizations. === 2020s === Driven by a need to increase internal data sharing with both business users and AI, organizations are now looking to adopt internal data marketplaces. These aim to democratize data consumption by providing seamless access for all employees and AI to trusted data, including data products, through an intuitive, e-commerce style experience. According to Gartner analyst Richa Jha, "by providing a single, governed platform for discovering, sharing, and scaling data products, data marketplaces drive productivity, collaboration, and ROI across the enterprise." == Data marketplaces within the overall data architecture == Data marketplaces provide a consumption and collaboration layer for data. That means they complement and integrate with other parts of the overall data architecture, including: === Data warehouses and data lakes === Data marketplaces connect to data sources, such as data warehouses or data lakes, to provide intuitive access to the data stored within them, enabling data to be shared and distributed to non-technical audiences. Access can be direct, with data and data products stored within the data marketplace or virtualized. === Data catalog === A data catalog provides a technical inventory of an organization's data estate. It collects technical information on all available data assets within an organization, based on metadata descriptions. This ensures traceability, and supports compliance and governance requirements. Unlike a data marketplace, a data catalog does not provide access to data, and is designed to be used by data professionals, rather than the business. This means it lacks an intuitive, understandable interface and is consequently not easily accessible by business users. === Data mesh === Data mesh is an architecture and framework for data management, first defined by Zhamak Dehghani in 2019. It aims to decentralize data ownership to delegate responsibility, empowering teams and focusing on delivering data to users in the form of self-service data products. The data marketplace is a central pillar of data mesh, providing intuitive access to these data products, and creating a collaboration space for data owners and data consumers. === Data product === Data products are high-value, consumable data assets that package high-quality data and associated tools to enable seamless usage by business users at scale. First defined by McKinsey in 2022, they have an identified owner, a service level agreement (SLA), and a reusability logic. == Core components of a data marketplace == A data marketplace typically includes specific core components: === E-commerce style interface === An e-commerce style experience that engages non-technical users, minimizes the need for training and builds confidence and trust in data. Look and feel should be customizable to incorporate corporate design guidelines to ensure consistency with other organizational applications. === Built-in data catalog === As in a standalone data catalog, this indexes all available data, based on metadata that includes type, source, owner, freshness, and quality level. === Discovery and search engine === This enables users to search, filter, explore and discover available data intuitively. As in an e-commerce marketplace, it should be intelligent, and provide relevant results based on natural language queries. === Access control and security management === Data marketplaces will contain data that needs to be protected under regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States, and sector-specific frameworks in industries such as finance and healthcare. To ensure both security and compliance while maximizing data consumption, the data marketplace should include granular access management and a full audit trail. === Semantic layer and business glossary === Different parts of the business are likely to use different terms to describe data. This leads to inconsistencies and an inability to share data across systems and teams. The semantic layer and business glossary standardize a shared vocabulary and common definitions of business indicators and concepts, providing a single language for data across the business and for AI agents. === Data governance mechanisms === These enforce corporate data governance policies, ensuring data traceability through data lineage, quality certification, usage monitoring, and continuous improvement through user feedback loops. === Collaboration features === As on an e-commerce website, a data marketplace should provide collaboration features that bring together data users and data owners. This includes the ability to rate data products, share use cases, and provide feedback to data owners, creating a community around data and supporting a data-driven culture. == Types of data marketplace == While they share the same underlying technology, data marketplaces can be deployed in three broad ways: === Internal data marketplaces === These bring together data from across an organization and make it available via self-service to employees from across the business. They aim to widen access to data and consequently to improve decision-making and reporting, increase performance and maximize efficiency. === Ecosystem data marketplaces === These extend sharing beyond a single organization, enabling multiple partners (public institutions, industry players, research bodies) to share and consume data within a governed framework. Data can be provided by all parties or simply by one organization and consumed by others. Ecosystem data marketplaces are particularly relevant in

  Read more →
• 

  Data room

  Data rooms are secure spaces used for housing data, usually of a privileged or confidential nature. They can be physical data rooms, virtual data rooms (VDRs), or data centers. They are primarily used for a variety of corporate purposes, including data storage, document exchange, file sharing, financial transactions, and legal proceedings. Today, data rooms are central to workflows in mergers and acquisitions, venture capital, and corporate restructuring, increasingly utilizing artificial intelligence to securely manage and review large datasets. Historically, data rooms were strictly physical locations heavily guarded and monitored. Today, the vast majority of corporate data rooms are hosted virtually on secure cloud platforms, though physical rooms are still occasionally used for highly sensitive government or proprietary intelligence. == Physical Data Rooms == In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), the traditional data room genuinely consists of a physically secured and continually monitored room, normally in the vendor's offices or those of their legal counsel. Bidders and their advisers visit this room in order to inspect and report on various documents, legal contracts, and financial statements made available during the due diligence process. Historically, physical data rooms presented significant logistical challenges. Often, only one bidder at a time was allowed to enter to maintain document integrity and confidentiality. If new documents or new versions of documents were required, they had to be brought in by courier as hardcopies. Teams involved in large due diligence processes typically had to be flown in from many regions or countries and remain available throughout the process. Because these teams comprised a number of experts in different fields—such as legal counsel, forensic accountants, and industry specialists—the overall cost of keeping such groups on call near the physical data room was often extremely high. == Virtual Data Rooms (VDRs) == To address the costs and logistical bottlenecks of physical data rooms, virtual data rooms (VDRs) were developed to provide secure, online dissemination of confidential information. A VDR is essentially a secure cloud repository with strictly controlled access. Access is managed through secure log-ons supplied by the vendor or authority, which can be disabled at any time if a bidder withdraws from a transaction. Because much of the information released during corporate transactions is highly confidential, VDRs utilize digital rights management (DRM) to control information. Restrictions are applied to the viewers' ability to release data to third parties by disabling forwarding, copying, or printing capabilities. Modern VDRs also employ dynamic watermarking and detailed auditing capabilities. Detailed auditing is required for legal reasons so that a precise digital footprint is kept of who has viewed which version of each document, and for how long. Furthermore, modern VDR platforms are typically built to comply with stringent information security standards such as ISO 27001 and SOC 2. Transitioning from sequential physical data rooms to parallel virtual data rooms has been shown to significantly reduce the duration of M&A transactions while allowing sellers to field multiple bidders simultaneously. == Key Applications == Data rooms are commonly used by legal, accounting, investment banking, and private equity firms. Primary applications include: Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): VDRs are central to the sell-side M&A process. After potential buyers sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and review a Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM), they are granted data room access to perform deep financial due diligence, such as Quality of Earnings (QoE) analysis and legal liability assessments. Venture Capital and Startups: Startups use data rooms as a centralized location for key operational data, capitalization tables, and financial projections to streamline due diligence for angel investors and venture capital firms during fundraising rounds. Initial Public Offerings (IPOs): Taking a company public requires intense regulatory scrutiny. Data rooms are used to securely share company histories and financial audits with investment bankers, legal teams, and regulatory bodies. Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency: During bankruptcies or corporate carve-outs, data rooms are used to organize outstanding debt profiles, creditor agreements, and operational liabilities. == Emerging Technologies == In recent years, the management of virtual data rooms has increasingly incorporated Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). Generative AI and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools are now integrated into VDRs to automatically index thousands of documents, perform auto-redaction of personally identifiable information (PII), and assist buy-side analysts in identifying hidden liabilities within unstructured text data during the due diligence phase. Modern AI algorithms can extract line items from financial statements to instantly populate structured databases.

  Read more →
• 

  AI-assisted software development

  AI-assisted software development is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment software development. It uses large language models (LLMs), AI agents and other AI technologies to assist software developers. It helps in a range of tasks of the software development life cycle, from code generation to debugging, editing, testing, UI design, understanding the code, and documentation. Agentic coding denotes the use of AI agents for software development. == Technologies == === Source code generation === Large language models trained or fine-tuned on source-code corpora can generate source code from natural-language descriptions, comments, or docstrings. Research on code-generation systems often evaluates generated programs by functional correctness, such as whether the output passes automated test cases, rather than by syntax alone. Such tools can be features or extensions of integrated development environments (IDEs). === Intelligent code completion === AI agents using pre-trained and fine-tuned LLMs can predict and suggest code completions based on context. According to Husein, Aburajouh & Catal in a 2025 literature review in Computer Standards & Interfaces, "LLMs significantly enhance code completion performance across several programming languages and contexts, and their capability to predict relevant code snippets based on context and partial input boosts developer productivity substantially." === Testing, debugging, code review and analysis === AI is used to automatically generate test cases, identify potential bugs and security vulnerabilities, and suggest fixes. AI can also be used to perform static code analysis and suggest potential performance improvements. == Limitations == Both ownership of and responsibility for AI-generated code is disputed. According to a report from the German Federal Office for Information Security, the use of AI coding assistants without careful oversight from experienced developers can introduce both minor and major security vulnerabilities, and any potential gain in productivity should be weighed against the cost of additional quality control and security measures. According to Deloitte, outputs from AI-assisted software development must be validated through a combination of automated testing, static analysis tools and human review, creating a governance layer to improve quality and accountability. == Vibe coding ==

  Read more →
• 

  Knapsack cryptosystems

  Knapsack cryptosystems are cryptosystems whose security is based on the hardness of solving the knapsack problem. They remain quite unpopular because simple versions of these algorithms have been broken for several decades. However, that type of cryptosystem is a good candidate for post-quantum cryptography. The most famous knapsack cryptosystem is the Merkle-Hellman Public Key Cryptosystem, one of the first public key cryptosystems, published the same year as the RSA cryptosystem. However, this system has been broken by several attacks: one from Shamir, one by Adleman, and the low density attack. However, there exist modern knapsack cryptosystems that are considered secure so far: among them is Nasako-Murakami 2006. Knapsack cryptosystems, when not subject to classical cryptoanalysis, are believed to be difficult even for quantum computers. That is not the case for systems that rely on factoring large integers, like RSA, or computing discrete logarithms, like ECDSA, problems solved in polynomial time with Shor's algorithm.

  Read more →
• 

  Backdoor (computing)

  A backdoor is a typically covert method of bypassing normal authentication or encryption in a computer, product, embedded device (e.g. a home router), or its embodiment (e.g. part of a cryptosystem, algorithm, chipset, or even a "homunculus computer"—a tiny computer-within-a-computer such as that found in Intel's AMT technology). Backdoors are most often used for securing remote access to a computer, or obtaining access to plaintext in cryptosystems. From there it may be used to gain access to privileged information like passwords, corrupt or delete data on hard drives, or transfer information within compromised networks. In the United States, the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act forces internet providers to provide backdoors for government authorities. In 2024, the U.S. government realized that China had been tapping communications in the U.S. using that infrastructure for months, or perhaps longer; China recorded presidential candidate campaign office phone calls—including employees of the then-vice president of the nation, and of the candidates themselves. A backdoor may take the form of a hidden part of a program, a separate program (e.g. Back Orifice may subvert the system through a rootkit), code in the firmware of the hardware, or parts of an operating system such as Windows, for example, device drivers. Trojan horses can be used to create vulnerabilities in a device. A Trojan horse may appear to be an entirely legitimate program, but when executed, it triggers an activity that may install a backdoor. Although some are secretly installed, other backdoors are deliberate and widely known. These kinds of backdoors have "legitimate" uses such as providing the manufacturer with a way to restore user passwords. Many systems that store information within the cloud fail to create accurate security measures. If many systems are connected within the cloud, hackers can gain access to all other platforms through the most vulnerable system. Default passwords (or other default credentials) can function as backdoors if they are not changed by the user. Some debugging features can also act as backdoors if they are not removed in the release version. In 1993, the United States government attempted to deploy an encryption system, the Clipper chip, with an explicit backdoor for law enforcement and national security access. The chip was unsuccessful. Recent proposals to counter backdoors include creating a database of backdoors' triggers and then using neural networks to detect them. == Overview == The threat of backdoors surfaced when multiuser and networked operating systems became widely adopted. Petersen and Turn discussed computer subversion in a paper published in the proceedings of the 1967 AFIPS Conference. They noted a class of active infiltration attacks that use "trapdoor" entry points into the system to bypass security facilities and permit direct access to data. The use of the word trapdoor here clearly coincides with more recent definitions of a backdoor. However, since the advent of public key cryptography the term trapdoor has acquired a different meaning (see: Trapdoor function), and thus the term "backdoor" is now preferred, only after the term trapdoor went out of use. More generally, such security breaches were discussed at length in a RAND Corporation task force report published under DARPA sponsorship by J.P. Anderson and D.J. Edwards in 1970. While initially targeting the computer vision domain, backdoor attacks have expanded to encompass various other domains, including text, audio, ML-based computer-aided design, and ML-based wireless signal classification. Additionally, vulnerabilities in backdoors have been demonstrated in deep generative models, reinforcement learning (e.g., AI GO), and deep graph models. These broad-ranging potential risks have prompted concerns from national security agencies regarding their potentially disastrous consequences. A backdoor in a login system might take the form of a hard coded user and password combination which gives access to the system. An example of this sort of backdoor was used as a plot device in the 1983 film WarGames, in which the architect of the "WOPR" computer system had inserted a hardcoded password-less account which gave the user access to the system, and to undocumented parts of the system (in particular, a video game-like simulation mode and direct interaction with the artificial intelligence). Although the number of backdoors in systems using proprietary software (software whose source code is not publicly available) is not widely credited, they are nevertheless frequently exposed. Programmers have even succeeded in secretly installing large amounts of benign code as Easter eggs in programs, although such cases may involve official forbearance, if not actual permission. == Examples == === Worms === Many computer worms, such as Sobig and Mydoom, install a backdoor on the affected computer (generally a PC on broadband running Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Outlook). Such backdoors appear to be installed so that spammers can send junk e-mail from the infected machines. Others, such as the Sony/BMG rootkit, placed secretly on millions of music CDs through late 2005, are intended as DRM measures—and, in that case, as data-gathering agents, since both surreptitious programs they installed routinely contacted central servers. A sophisticated attempt to plant a backdoor in the Linux kernel, exposed in November 2003, added a small and subtle code change by subverting the revision control system. In this case, a two-line change appeared to check root access permissions of a caller to the sys_wait4 function, but because it used assignment = instead of equality checking ==, it actually granted permissions to the system. This difference is easily overlooked, and could even be interpreted as an accidental typographical error, rather than an intentional attack. In January 2014, a backdoor was discovered in certain Samsung Android products, like the Galaxy devices. The Samsung proprietary Android versions are fitted with a backdoor that provides remote access to the data stored on the device. In particular, the Samsung Android software that is in charge of handling the communications with the modem, using the Samsung IPC protocol, implements a class of requests known as remote file server (RFS) commands, that allows the backdoor operator to perform via modem remote I/O operations on the device hard disk or other storage. As the modem is running Samsung proprietary Android software, it is likely that it offers over-the-air remote control that could then be used to issue the RFS commands and thus to access the file system on the device. === Object code backdoors === Harder to detect backdoors involve modifying object code, rather than source code—object code is much harder to inspect, as it is designed to be machine-readable, not human-readable. These backdoors can be inserted either directly in the on-disk object code, or inserted at some point during compilation, assembly linking, or loading—in the latter case the backdoor never appears on disk, only in memory. Object code backdoors are difficult to detect by inspection of the object code, but are easily detected by simply checking for changes (differences), notably in length or in checksum, and in some cases can be detected or analyzed by disassembling the object code. Further, object code backdoors can be removed (assuming source code is available) by simply recompiling from source on a trusted system. Thus for such backdoors to avoid detection, all extant copies of a binary must be subverted, and any validation checksums must also be compromised, and source must be unavailable, to prevent recompilation. Alternatively, these other tools (length checks, diff, checksumming, disassemblers) can themselves be compromised to conceal the backdoor, for example detecting that the subverted binary is being checksummed and returning the expected value, not the actual value. To conceal these further subversions, the tools must also conceal the changes in themselves—for example, a subverted checksummer must also detect if it is checksumming itself (or other subverted tools) and return false values. This leads to extensive changes in the system and tools being needed to conceal a single change. As object code can be regenerated by recompiling (reassembling, relinking) the original source code, making a persistent object code backdoor (without modifying source code) requires subverting the compiler itself—so that when it detects that it is compiling the program under attack it inserts the backdoor—or alternatively the assembler, linker, or loader. As this requires subverting the compiler, this in turn can be fixed by recompiling the compiler, removing the backdoor insertion code. This defense can in turn be subverted by putting a source meta-backdoor in the compiler, so that when it detects that it is compiling itself

  Read more →