AI Code Understanding

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

NASA AI Assisted-Air Quality Monitoring Project

The NASA Expert-System Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer (ES-ITMS) Project was a public-private partnership to develop an artificial intelligence assisted, air quality monitoring system and was qualified for use on the Space Shuttle. The partnership was also the first cost and intellectual property shared public-partnership implemented by NASA, which used the commercial Research and Development Limited Partnership (RDLP) model that had been adopted by the Reagan Administration for Department of Defense semiconductor development, and recommended for use by NASA for space commercialization. The project partners included NASA, the University of Florida and Finnigan MAT Corporation, was organized and administered by the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute (subsequently NASA Joint Sponsored Program) and ran from 1988 through 1990. The partnership concluded final testing in 1991, generating four patents, expert system software and application protocol reports. The system was space qualified for use on the Shuttle and elements of the ES-ITMS system were integrated into the product Improvements for Finnigan MAT corporation. The success of the partnership lead NASA to create a pilot program to develop partnership business models as an ongoing management practice. == Purpose and objectives == The need to monitor air quality in confined spaces represented an increasing challenge for NASA's planned space missions and private sector facility managers facing the increased scrutiny of possible air contaminants. Up to the early 1980's, air quality monitors generally required large spaces and human technicians to interpret readings. This created a need for miniaturized air quality monitors that could generate reliable and accurate analytic results without on-site technician presence. NASA initiated projects to develop..."mobile and/or portable mass spectrometers" that evaluated the "tradeoff between instrumentation capabilities and space, weight and power considerations." NASA selected a "commercial ITMS instrument capable of generating electron ionization, chemical ionization and mass spectrometry data", to develop a linked expert system to accomplish analysis without human intervention. The commercial instrumentation was from Finnigan MAT corporation while the scientific expertise to support expert system development was available at the University of Florida. The project managers at NASA Ames created a single, integrated project using the RDLP model with objectives to: Develop AI/expert system software for instrument control (NASA's role) Expand sensitivity, selectivity and speed of the spectrometer (Univ Florida role) Expand the spectrometer analytic capability and automate the screening (Finnigan role) == Membership == The partnership included seven specialists from five member organizations: Federal Government National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Commercial Finnigan MAT Corporation (Thermo-Fisher Scientific) TGS Technology, Inc. Research Management University of Florida == Organization, management and administration == The technical project was organized into two development teams, one located in at the NASA Ames Research Center covering expert systems and analytic capabilities and one in Florida covering improved sensitivity and testing. The partnership management and administration was provided by a non-profit, partnership support organization: the Joint Enterprise Institute operating through San Francisco State University Foundation (SFSUF) with a NASA employee liaison, Syed Shariq. == Public-private partnership == The partnership structure was as a prototype test of a pilot NASA program to develop public-private partnership business models. The pilot program was known as the NASA Joint Sponsored Research Program (JSRP), which operated as the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute between 1988 and 1991. The partnership was the first public-private, research and development partnership implemented by NASA in response to national policy shifts to increase technology transfer and space commercialization. The partnership structure included a two year technology development and testing plan that cost $610,000, of which NASA funded $310,000, Finnigan $175,000 and the University of Florida $95,000. == Results and commercialization == The project generated patents (4), software (2) and application protocol reports (8). NASA gained use of the patents and jointly development software while Finnigan received commercial utilization rights. The results were commercialized within eighteen months of project completion. == Recognition == NASA recognized the project as a space qualified instrument. Its achievements were reported to the NASA Administrator, directly leading to establishment of the agency-wide Joint Sponsored Research Program.
Read more →
Semi-Automatic Ground Environment

The Semi-Automated Ground Environment (SAGE) was a system of large computers and associated networking equipment that coordinated data from many radar sites and processed it to produce a single unified image of the airspace over a wide area. SAGE directed and controlled the NORAD response to a possible Soviet air attack, operating in this role from the late 1950s into the 1980s. The processing power behind SAGE was supplied by the largest discrete component-based computer ever built, the AN/FSQ-7, manufactured by IBM. Each SAGE Direction Center (DC) housed an FSQ-7 which occupied an entire floor, approximately 22,000 square feet (2,000 m2) not including supporting equipment. The FSQ-7 was actually two computers, "A" side and "B" side. Computer processing was switched from "A" side to "B" side on a regular basis, allowing maintenance on the unused side. Information was fed to the DCs from a network of radar stations as well as readiness information from various defense sites. The computers, based on the raw radar data, developed "tracks" for the reported targets, and automatically calculated which defenses were within range. Operators used light guns to select targets on-screen for further information, select one of the available defenses, and issue commands to attack. These commands would then be automatically sent to the defense site via teleprinter. Connecting the various sites was an enormous network of telephones, modems and teleprinters. Later additions to the system allowed SAGE's tracking data to be sent directly to CIM-10 Bomarc missiles and some of the US Air Force's interceptor aircraft in-flight, directly updating their autopilots to maintain an intercept course without operator intervention. Each DC also forwarded data to a Combat Center (CC) for "supervision of the several sectors within the division" ("each combat center [had] the capability to coordinate defense for the whole nation"). SAGE became operational in the late 1950s and early 1960s at an estimated total cost between 8 and 12 billion dollars, four times the cost of the Manhattan Project. Throughout its development, there were continual concerns about its real ability to deal with large attacks, and the Operation Sky Shield tests showed that only about one-fourth of enemy bombers would have been intercepted. Nevertheless, SAGE was the backbone of NORAD's air defense system into the 1980s, by which time the tube-based FSQ-7s were increasingly costly to maintain and completely outdated. Today the same command and control task is carried out by microcomputers, based on the same basic underlying data. == Background == === Earlier systems === Just prior to World War II, Royal Air Force (RAF) tests with the new Chain Home (CH) radars had demonstrated that relaying information to the fighter aircraft directly from the radar sites was not feasible. The radars determined the map coordinates of the enemy, but could generally not see the fighters at the same time. This meant the fighters had to be able to determine where to fly to perform an interception but were often unaware of their own exact location and unable to calculate an interception while also flying their aircraft. The solution was to send all of the radar information to a central control station where operators collated the reports into single tracks, and then reported these tracks to the airbases, or sectors. The sectors used additional systems to track their own aircraft, plotting both on a single large map. Operators viewing the map could then see what direction their fighters would have to fly to approach their targets and relay that simply by telling them to fly along a certain heading or vector. This Dowding system was the first ground-controlled interception (GCI) system of large scale, covering the entirety of the UK. It proved enormously successful during the Battle of Britain, and is credited as being a key part of the RAF's success. The system was slow, often providing information that was up to five minutes out of date. Against propeller driven bombers flying at perhaps 225 miles per hour (362 km/h) this was not a serious concern, but it was clear the system would be of little use against jet-powered bombers flying at perhaps 600 miles per hour (970 km/h). The system was extremely expensive in manpower terms, requiring hundreds of telephone operators, plotters and trackers in addition to the radar operators. This was a serious drain on manpower, making it difficult to expand the network. The idea of using a computer to handle the task of taking reports and developing tracks had been explored beginning late in the war. By 1944, analog computers had been installed at the CH stations to automatically convert radar readings into map locations, eliminating two people. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy began experimenting with the Comprehensive Display System (CDS), another analog computer that took X and Y locations from a map and automatically generated tracks from repeated inputs. Similar systems began development with the Royal Canadian Navy, DATAR, and the US Navy, the Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS). A similar system was also specified for the Nike SAM project, specifically referring to a US version of CDS, coordinating the defense over a battle area so that multiple batteries did not fire on a single target. All of these systems were relatively small in geographic scale, generally tracking within a city-sized area. === Valley Committee === When the Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in August 1949, the topic of air defense of the US became important for the first time. A study group, the "Air Defense Systems Engineering Committee", was set up under the direction of Dr. George Valley to consider the problem and is known to history as the "Valley Committee". Their December report noted a key problem in air defense using ground-based radars. A bomber approaching a radar station would detect the signals from the radar long before the reflection off the bomber was strong enough to be detected by the station. The committee suggested that when this occurred, the bomber would descend to low altitude, thereby greatly limiting the radar horizon, allowing the bomber to fly past the station undetected. Although flying at low altitude greatly increased fuel consumption, the team calculated that the bomber would only need to do this for about 10% of its flight, making the fuel penalty acceptable. The only solution to this problem was to build a huge number of stations with overlapping coverage. At that point the problem became one of managing the information. Manual plotting was ruled out as too slow, and a computerized solution was the only possibility. To handle this task, the computer would need to be fed information directly, eliminating any manual translation by phone operators, and it would have to be able to analyze that information and automatically develop tracks. A system tasked with defending cities against the predicted future Soviet bomber fleet would have to be dramatically more powerful than the models used in the NTDS or DATAR. The Committee then had to consider whether or not such a computer was possible. The Valley Committee was introduced to Jerome Wiesner, associate director of the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT. Wiesner noted that the Servomechanisms Laboratory had already begun development of a machine that might be fast enough. This was the Whirlwind I, originally developed for the Office of Naval Research as a general purpose flight simulator that could simulate any current or future aircraft by changing its software. Wiesner introduced the Valley Committee to Whirlwind's project lead, Jay Forrester, who convinced him that Whirlwind was sufficiently capable. In September 1950, an early microwave early-warning radar system at Hanscom Field was connected to Whirlwind using a custom interface developed by Forrester's team. An aircraft was flown past the site, and the system digitized the radar information and successfully sent it to Whirlwind. With this demonstration, the technical concept was proven. Forrester was invited to join the committee. === Project Charles === With this successful demonstration, Louis Ridenour, chief scientist of the Air Force, wrote a memo stating "It is now apparent that the experimental work necessary to develop, test, and evaluate the systems proposals made by ADSEC will require a substantial amount of laboratory and field effort." Ridenour approached MIT President James Killian with the aim of beginning a development lab similar to the war-era Radiation Laboratory that made enormous progress in radar technology. Killian was initially uninterested, desiring to return the school to its peacetime civilian charter. Ridenour eventually convinced Killian the idea was sound by describing the way the lab would lead to the development of a local electronics industry based on the needs of the lab and the students who would leave the lab to start their
Read more →
Vans challenge

The Vans challenge is a viral internet challenge that began in March 2019 where people show their Vans shoes landing right-side up after tossing them in the air. The viral sensation reportedly started after a Twitter user shared a video of the occurrence, which was captioned: “Did you know it doesn’t matter how you throw your Vans they will land facing up.” Since then, multiple people on social media posted similar videos of them throwing their Vans in the air and landing right-side up, along with Crocs, UGG boots, and other popular shoes. This theory proved false, as these shoes have not always landed facing up after tossing them.
Read more →
Personal web page

Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution. Personal web pages are primarily used for informative or entertainment purposes but can also be used for personal career marketing (by containing a list of the individual's skills, experience and a CV), social networking with other people with shared interests, or as a space for personal expression. These terms do not usually refer to just a single "page" or HTML file, but to a website—a collection of webpages and related files under a common URL or Web address. In strictly technical terms, a site's actual home page (index page) often only contains sparse content with some catchy introductory material and serves mostly as a pointer or table of contents to the more content-rich pages inside, such as résumés, family, hobbies, family genealogy, a web log/diary ("blog"), opinions, online journals and diaries or other writing, examples of written work, digital audio sound clips, digital video clips, digital photos, or information about a user's other interests. Many personal pages only include information of interest to friends and family of the author. However, some webpages set up by hobbyists or enthusiasts of certain subject areas can be valuable topical web directories. == History == In the 1990s, most Internet service providers (ISPs) provided a free small personal, user-created webpage along with free Usenet News service. These were all considered part of full Internet service. Also several free web hosting services such as GeoCities provided free web space for personal web pages. These free web hosting services would typically include web-based site management and a few pre-configured scripts to easily integrate an input form or guestbook script into the user's site. Early personal web pages were often called "home pages" and were intended to be set as a default page in a web browser's preferences, usually by their owner. These pages would often contain links, to-do lists, and other information their author found useful. In the days when search engines were in their infancy, these pages (and the links they contained) could be an important resource in navigating the web. Since the early 2000s, the rise of blogging and the development of user friendly web page designing software made it easier for amateur users who did not have computer programming or website designer training to create personal web pages. Some website design websites provided free ready-made blogging scripts, where all the user had to do was input their content into a template. At the same time, a personal web presence became easier with the increased popularity of social networking services, some with blogging platforms such as LiveJournal and Blogger. These websites provided an attractive and easy-to-use content management system for regular users. Most of the early personal websites were Web 1.0 style, in which a static display of text and images or photos was displayed to individuals who came to the page. About the only interaction that was possible on these early websites was signing the virtual "guestbook". With the collapse of the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s, the ISP industry consolidated, and the focus of web hosting services shifted away from the surviving ISP companies to independent Internet hosting services and to ones with other affiliations. For example, many university departments provided personal pages for professors and television broadcasters provided them for their on-air personalities. These free webpages served as a perquisite ("perk") for staff, while at the same time boosting the Web visibility of the parent organization. Web hosting companies either charge a monthly fee, or provide service that is "free" (advertising based) for personal web pages. These are priced or limited according to the total size of all files in bytes on the host's hard drive, or by bandwidth, (traffic), or by some combination of both. For those customers who continue to use their ISP for these services, national ISPs commonly continue to provide both disk space and help including ready-made drop-in scripts. With the rise of Web 2.0-style websites, both professional websites and user-created, amateur websites tended to contain interactive features, such as "clickable" links to online newspaper articles or favourite websites, the option to comment on content displayed on the website, the option to "tag" images, videos or links on the site, the option of "clicking" on an image to enlarge it or find out more information, the option of user participation for website guests to evaluate or review the pages, or even the option to create new user-generated content for others to see. A key difference between Web 1.0 personal webpages and Web 2.0 personal pages was while the former tended to be created by hackers, computer programmers and computer hobbyists, the latter were created by a much wider variety of users, including individuals whose main interests lay in hobbies or topics outside of computers (e.g., indie music fans, political activists, and social entrepreneurs). == Motivations == In a study done by Zinkhan, participants had four main reasons to create personal web pages. First, people use personal web pages as a portrayal of self, in a sense marketing themselves, since creators have the freedom to portray their own identities. Second, personal web pages are a way to interact with people who have similar interests as the creator, possible employers, or colleagues. Third, personal web pages can gain social acceptance with groups that the creator is interested in depending on the information that the creator reveals about themselves. Fourth, personal web pages can give creators a sense of connection to the world since these web pages are public and a way to introduce oneself to other people around the globe. People may maintain personal web pages to serve as a showcase for their skills in professional life, creative skills or self promotion of their business, charity or band. The use of personal web pages to display an individual's professional life has become more common in the 21st century. Mary Madden, an expert researcher on privacy and technology, did a study that found a tenth of American jobs require Personal web pages that advertise an individual online. Personal web pages have become a source of initial impression of possible employees used by employers. It can also be used to express opinions on issues ranging from news and politics to movies. Others may use their personal web page as a communication method. For example, an aspiring artist might give out business cards with their personal web page, and invite people to visit their page and see their artwork, "like" their page or sign their guestbook. A personal web page gives the owner generally more control on presence in search results and how they wish to be viewed online. It also allows more freedom in types and quantity of content than a social network profile offers, and can link various social media profiles with each other. It can be used to correct the record on something, or clear up potential confusion between you and someone with the same name. In the 2010s, some amateur writers, bands and filmmakers release digital versions of their stories, songs and short films online, with the aim of gaining an audience and becoming more well-known. While the huge number of aspiring artists posting their work online makes it unlikely for individuals and groups to become popular via the Internet, there are a small number of YouTube stars who were unknown until their online performances garnered them a huge audience. == Sites of academics == Academic professionals (especially at the college and university level), including professors and researchers, are often given online space for creating and storing personal web documents, including personal web pages, CVs and a list of their books, academic papers and conference presentations, on the websites of their employers. This goes back to the early decade of the World Wide Web and its original purpose of providing a quick and easy way for academics to share research papers and data. Researchers may have a personal website to share more information about themselves, about their academic activities and for sharing (unpublished) results of their research. This has been noted as part of the success of open-access repositories such as arXiv.
Read more →
Trustworthy computing

The term trustworthy computing (TwC) has been applied to computing systems that are inherently secure, available, and reliable. It is particularly associated with the Microsoft initiative of the same name, launched in 2002. == History == Until 1995, there were restrictions on commercial traffic over the Internet. On, May 26, 1995, Bill Gates sent the "Internet Tidal Wave" memorandum to Microsoft executives assigning "...the Internet this highest level of importance..." but Microsoft's Windows 95 was released without a web browser as Microsoft had not yet developed one. The success of the web had caught them by surprise but by mid 1995, they were testing their own web server, and on August 24, 1995, launched a major online service, The Microsoft Network (MSN). The National Research Council recognized that the rise of the Internet simultaneously increased societal reliance on computer systems while increasing the vulnerability of such systems to failure and produced an important report in 1999, "Trust in Cyberspace". This report reviews the cost of un-trustworthy systems and identifies actions required for improvement. == Microsoft and Trustworthy Computing == Bill Gates launched Microsoft's "Trustworthy Computing" initiative with a January 15, 2002 memo, referencing an internal whitepaper by Microsoft CTO and Senior Vice President Craig Mundie. The move was reportedly prompted by the fact that they "...had been under fire from some of its larger customers–government agencies, financial companies and others–about the security problems in Windows, issues that were being brought front and center by a series of self-replicating worms and embarrassing attacks." such as Code Red, Nimda, Klez and Slammer. Four areas were identified as the initiative's key areas: Security, Privacy, Reliability, and Business Integrity, and despite some initial scepticism, at its 10-year anniversary it was generally accepted as having "...made a positive impact on the industry...". The Trustworthy Computing campaign was the main reason why Easter eggs disappeared from Windows, Office and other Microsoft products.
Read more →
Coreu

COREU (French: Correspondance Européenne – Telex network of European correspondents, also EUKOR-Netzwerk in Austria) is a communication network of the European Union for the communication of the Council of the European Union, the European correspondents of the foreign ministries of the EU member states, permanent representatives of member states in Brussels, the European Commission, and the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union. The European Parliament is not among the participants. COREU is the European equivalent of the American Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet, also known as Intelink-S). COREU's official aim is fast communication in case of crisis. The network enables a closer cooperation in matters regarding foreign affairs. In actuality the system's function exceeds that of mere communication, it also enables decision-making. COREU's first goal is to enable the exchange of information before and after decisions. Relaying upfront negotiations in preparation of meetings is the second goal. In addition, the system also allows the editing of documents and the decision-making, especially if there is little time. While the first two goals are preparatory measures for a shared foreign policy, the third is a methodical variant marked by practise that is defining for the image of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. == Members == (The following information dates from 2013): There is one representative in each of the capital cities in the EU.(since 1973) In Germany for example, this is the European correspondent (EU-KOR) from the Foreign Office. In Austria it is the European correspondent from the Referat II.1.a in the Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs They are the correspondents (since 1982) for the European Commission They comprise the secretariat for the European Council They also make up the European External Action Service (EEAS) (responsible for foreign policy issues, since 1987) == Data volume and technical details == COREU functions as a spoke-hub distribution paradigm system with the hub in Brussels. The network is operated by the European Union Intelligence and Situation Centre (formerly Joint Situation Center, JSC). The technical infrastructure is located in a building of the European Council. COREU may be described as an advanced telex system with encrypted messages via dedicated terminals. Once a message has reached the destination, it is then redistributed via the local media. In contrast, messages of governments are transmitted via local media to the correspondents and from there delivered point-to-point to Brussels via COREU. In 2010, approximately 8500 communications had been distributed over this network. == History == A telex-based communication system under the name COREU was established in 1973. Originally, only the ministries of Foreign Affairs in the European capitals were connected to it. This telex system was replaced in 1997 by the mail system CORTESY (COREU Terminal Equipment System). The name was retained despite the technical innovation. COREU was reportedly compromised by hackers working for the People's Liberation Army Strategic Support Force, allowing for the theft of thousands of low-classified documents and diplomatic cables.
Read more →
Chaffing and winnowing

Chaffing and winnowing is a cryptographic technique to achieve confidentiality without using encryption when sending data over an insecure channel. The name is derived from agriculture: after grain has been harvested and threshed, it remains mixed together with inedible fibrous chaff. The chaff and grain are then separated by winnowing, and the chaff is discarded. The cryptographic technique was conceived by Ron Rivest and published in an on-line article on 18 March 1998. Although it bears similarities to both traditional encryption and steganography, it cannot be classified under either category. This technique allows the sender to deny responsibility for encrypting their message. When using chaffing and winnowing, the sender transmits the message unencrypted, in clear text. Although the sender and the receiver share a secret key, they use it only for authentication. However, a third party can make their communication confidential by simultaneously sending specially crafted messages through the same channel. == How it works == The sender (Alice) wants to send a message to the receiver (Bob). In the simplest setup, Alice enumerates the symbols in her message and sends out each in a separate packet. If the symbols are complex enough, such as natural-language text, an attacker may be able to distinguish the real symbols from poorly faked chaff symbols, posing a similar problem as steganography in needing to generate highly realistic fakes; to avoid this, the symbols can be reduced to just single 0/1 bits, and realistic fakes can then be simply randomly generated 50:50 and are indistinguishable from real symbols. In general, the method requires each symbol to arrive in-order and to be authenticated by the receiver. When implemented over networks that may change the order of packets, the sender places the symbol's serial number in the packet, the symbol itself (both unencrypted), and a message authentication code (MAC). Many MACs use a secret key Alice shares with Bob, but it is sufficient that the receiver has a method to authenticate the packets. Rivest notes an interesting property of chaffing-and-winnowing is that third parties (such as an ISP) can opportunistically add it to communications without needing permission or coordination with the sender/recipient. A third-party (Charles) who transmits Alice's packets to Bob, interleaves the packets with corresponding bogus packets (called "chaff") with corresponding serial numbers, arbitrary symbols, and a random number in place of the MAC. Charles does not need to know the key to do that (real MACs are large enough that it is extremely unlikely to generate a valid one by chance, unlike in the example). Bob uses the MAC to find the authentic messages and drops the "chaff" messages. This process is called "winnowing". An eavesdropper located between Alice and Charles can easily read Alice's message. But an eavesdropper between Charles and Bob would have to tell which packets are bogus and which are real (i.e. to winnow, or "separate the wheat from the chaff"). That is infeasible if the MAC used is secure and Charles does not leak any information on packet authenticity (e.g. via timing). If a fourth party joins the example (named Darth) who wants to send counterfeit messages to impersonate Alice, it would require Alice to disclose her secret key. If Darth cannot force Alice to disclose an authentication key (the knowledge of which would enable him to forge messages from Alice), then her messages will remain confidential. Charles, on the other hand, is no target of Darth's at all, since Charles does not even possess any secret keys that could be disclosed. == Variations == The simple variant of the chaffing and winnowing technique described above adds many bits of overhead per bit of original message. To make the transmission more efficient, Alice can process her message with an all-or-nothing transform and then send it out in much larger chunks. The chaff packets will have to be modified accordingly. Because the original message can be reconstructed only by knowing all of its chunks, Charles needs to send only enough chaff packets to make finding the correct combination of packets computationally infeasible. Chaffing and winnowing lends itself especially well to use in packet-switched network environments such as the Internet, where each message (whose payload is typically small) is sent in a separate network packet. In another variant of the technique, Charles carefully interleaves packets coming from multiple senders. That eliminates the need for Charles to generate and inject bogus packets in the communication. However, the text of Alice's message cannot be well protected from other parties who are communicating via Charles at the same time. This variant also helps protect against information leakage and traffic analysis. == Implications for law enforcement == Ron Rivest suggests that laws related to cryptography, including export controls, would not apply to chaffing and winnowing because it does not employ any encryption at all. The power to authenticate is in many cases the power to control, and handing all authentication power to the government is beyond all reason The author of the paper proposes that the security implications of handing everyone's authentication keys to the government for law-enforcement purposes would be far too risky, since possession of the key would enable someone to masquerade and communicate as another entity, such as an airline controller. Furthermore, Ron Rivest contemplates the possibility of rogue law enforcement officials framing up innocent parties by introducing the chaff into their communications, concluding that drafting a law restricting chaffing and winnowing would be far too difficult. == Trivia == The term winnowing was suggested by Ronald Rivest's father. Before the publication of Rivest's paper in 1998 other people brought to his attention a 1965 novel, Rex Stout's The Doorbell Rang, which describes the same concept and was thus included in the paper's references.
Read more →
Social profiling

Social profiling is the process of constructing a social media user's profile using their social data. In general, profiling refers to the data science process of generating a person's profile with computerized algorithms and technology. There are various platforms for sharing this information with the proliferation of growing popular social networks, including but not limited to LinkedIn, Google+, Facebook and Twitter. == Social profile and social data == A person's social data refers to the personal data that they generate either online or offline (for more information, see social data revolution). A large amount of these data, including one's language, location and interest, is shared through social media and social network. Users join multiple social media platforms and their profiles across these platforms can be linked using different methods to obtain their interests, locations, content, and friend list. Altogether, this information can be used to construct a person's social profile. Meeting the user's satisfaction level for information collection is becoming more challenging. This is because of too much "noise" generated, which affects the process of information collection due to explosively increasing online data. Social profiling is an emerging approach to overcome the challenges faced in meeting user's demands by introducing the concept of personalized search while keeping in consideration user profiles generated using social network data. A study reviews and classifies research inferring users social profile attributes from social media data as individual and group profiling. The existing techniques along with utilized data sources, the limitations, and challenges were highlighted. The prominent approaches adopted include machine learning, ontology, and fuzzy logic. Social media data from Twitter and Facebook have been used by most of the studies to infer the social attributes of users. The literature showed that user social attributes, including age, gender, home location, wellness, emotion, opinion, relation, influence are still need to be explored. === Personalized meta-search engines === The ever-increasing online content has resulted in the lack of proficiency of centralized search engine's results. It can no longer satisfy user's demand for information. A possible solution that would increase coverage of search results would be meta-search engines, an approach that collects information from numerous centralized search engines. A new problem thus emerges, that is too much data and too much noise is generated in the collection process. Therefore, a new technique called personalized meta-search engines was developed. It makes use of a user's profile (largely social profile) to filter the search results. A user's profile can be a combination of a number of things, including but not limited to, "a user's manual selected interests, user's search history", and personal social network data. == Social media profiling == According to Samuel D. Warren II and Louis Brandeis (1890), disclosure of private information and the misuse of it can hurt people's feelings and cause considerable damage in people's lives. Social networks provide people access to intimate online interactions; therefore, information access control, information transactions, privacy issues, connections and relationships on social media have become important research fields and are subjects of concern to the public. Ricard Fogues and other co-authors state that "any privacy mechanism has at its base an access control", that dictate "how permissions are given, what elements can be private, how access rules are defined, and so on". Current access control for social media accounts tend to still be very simplistic: there is very limited diversity in the category of relationships on for social network accounts. User's relationships to others are, on most platforms, only categorized as "friend" or "non-friend" and people may leak important information to "friends" inside their social circle but not necessarily users to they consciously want to share the information to. The below section is concerned with social media profiling and what profiling information on social media accounts can achieve. === Privacy leaks === A lot of information is voluntarily shared on online social networks, such as photos and updates on life activities (new job, hobbies, etc.). People rest assured that different social network accounts on different platforms will not be linked as long as they do not grant permission to these links. However, according to Diane Gan, information gathered online enables "target subjects to be identified on other social networking sites such as Foursquare, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook and Google+, where more personal information was leaked". The majority of social networking platforms use the "opt out approach" for their features. If users wish to protect their privacy, it is user's own responsibility to check and change the privacy settings as a number of them are set to default option. A major social network platforms have developed geo-tag functions and are in popular usage. This is concerning because 39% of users have experienced profiling hacking; 78% burglars have used major social media networks and Google Street-view to select their victims; and an astonishing 54% of burglars attempted to break into empty houses when people posted their status updates and geo-locations. === Facebook === Formation and maintenance of social media accounts and their relationships with other accounts are associated with various social outcomes. In 2015, for many firms, customer relationship management is essential and is partially done through Facebook. Before the emergence and prevalence of social media, customer identification was primarily based upon information that a firm could directly acquire: for example, it may be through a customer's purchasing process or voluntary act of completing a survey/loyalty program. However, the rise of social media has greatly reduced the approach of building a customer's profile/model based on available data. Marketers now increasingly seek customer information through Facebook; this may include a variety of information users disclose to all users or partial users on Facebook: name, gender, date of birth, e-mail address, sexual orientation, marital status, interests, hobbies, favorite sports team(s), favorite athlete(s), or favorite music, and more importantly, Facebook connections. However, due to the privacy policy design, acquiring true information on Facebook is no trivial task. Often, Facebook users either refuse to disclose true information (sometimes using pseudonyms) or setting information to be only visible to friends, Facebook users who "LIKE" your page are also hard to identify. To do online profiling of users and cluster users, marketers and companies can and will access the following kinds of data: gender, the IP address and city of each user through the Facebook Insight page, who "LIKED" a certain user, a page list of all the pages that a person "LIKED" (transaction data), other people that a user follow (even if it exceeds the first 500, which we usually can not see) and all the publicly shared data. === Twitter === First launched on the Internet in March 2006, Twitter is a platform on which users can connect and communicate with any other user in just 280 characters. Like Facebook, Twitter is also a crucial tunnel for users to leak important information, often unconsciously, but able to be accessed and collected by others. According to Rachel Nuwer, in a sample of 10.8 million tweets by more than 5,000 users, their posted and publicly shared information are enough to reveal a user's income range. A postdoctoral researcher from the University of Pennsylvania, Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro and his colleagues were able to categorize 90% of users into corresponding income groups. Their existing collected data, after being fed into a machine-learning model, generated reliable predictions on the characteristics of each income group. The mobile app called Streamd.in displays live tweets on Google Maps by using geo-location details attached to the tweet, and traces the user's movement in the real world. === Profiling photos on social network === The advent and universality of social media networks have boosted the role of images and visual information dissemination. Many types of visual information on social media transmit messages from the author, location information and other personal information. For example, a user may post a photo of themselves in which landmarks are visible, which can enable other users to determine where they are. In a study done by Cristina Segalin, Dong Seon Cheng and Marco Cristani, they found that profiling user posts' photos can reveal personal traits such as personality and mood. In the study, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) is introduced. It builds on the main characteristics of computational
Read more →
Uncertain data

In computer science, uncertain data is data that contains noise that makes it deviate from the correct, intended or original values. In the age of big data, uncertainty or data veracity is one of the defining characteristics of data. Data is constantly growing in volume, variety, velocity and uncertainty (1/veracity). Uncertain data is found in abundance today on the web, in sensor networks, within enterprises both in their structured and unstructured sources. For example, there may be uncertainty regarding the address of a customer in an enterprise dataset, or the temperature readings captured by a sensor due to aging of the sensor. In 2012 IBM called out managing uncertain data at scale in its global technology outlook report that presents a comprehensive analysis looking three to ten years into the future seeking to identify significant, disruptive technologies that will change the world. In order to make confident business decisions based on real-world data, analyses must necessarily account for many different kinds of uncertainty present in very large amounts of data. Analyses based on uncertain data will have an effect on the quality of subsequent decisions, so the degree and types of inaccuracies in this uncertain data cannot be ignored. Uncertain data is found in the area of sensor networks; text where noisy text is found in abundance on social media, web and within enterprises where the structured and unstructured data may be old, outdated, or plain incorrect; in modeling where the mathematical model may only be an approximation of the actual process. When representing such data in a database, an appropriate uncertain database model needs to be selected. == Example data model for uncertain data == One way to represent uncertain data is through probability distributions. Let us take the example of a relational database. There are three main ways to do represent uncertainty as probability distributions in such a database model. In attribute uncertainty, each uncertain attribute in a tuple is subject to its own independent probability distribution. For example, if readings are taken of temperature and wind speed, each would be described by its own probability distribution, as knowing the reading for one measurement would not provide any information about the other. In correlated uncertainty, multiple attributes may be described by a joint probability distribution. For example, if readings are taken of the position of an object, and the x- and y-coordinates stored, the probability of different values may depend on the distance from the recorded coordinates. As distance depends on both coordinates, it may be appropriate to use a joint distribution for these coordinates, as they are not independent. In tuple uncertainty, all the attributes of a tuple are subject to a joint probability distribution. This covers the case of correlated uncertainty, but also includes the case where there is a probability of a tuple not belonging in the relevant relation, which is indicated by all the probabilities not summing to one. For example, assume we have the following tuple from a probabilistic database: Then, the tuple has 10% chance of not existing in the database.
Read more →
Key-agreement protocol

In cryptography, a key-agreement protocol is a protocol whereby two (or more) parties generate a cryptographic key as a function of information provided by each honest party so that no party can predetermine the resulting value. In particular, all honest participants influence the outcome. A key-agreement protocol is a specialisation of a key-exchange protocol. At the completion of the protocol, all parties share the same key. A key-agreement protocol precludes undesired third parties from forcing a key choice on the agreeing parties. A secure key agreement can ensure confidentiality and data integrity in communications systems, ranging from simple messaging applications to complex banking transactions. Secure agreement is defined relative to a security model, for example the Universal Model. More generally, when evaluating protocols, it is important to state security goals and the security model. For example, it may be required for the session key to be authenticated. A protocol can be evaluated for success only in the context of its goals and attack model. An example of an adversarial model is the Dolev–Yao model. In many key exchange systems, one party generates the key, and sends that key to the other party; the other party has no influence on the key. == Exponential key exchange == The first publicly known public-key agreement protocol that meets the above criteria was the Diffie–Hellman key exchange, in which two parties jointly exponentiate a generator with random numbers, in such a way that an eavesdropper cannot feasibly determine what the resultant shared key is. Exponential key agreement in and of itself does not specify any prior agreement or subsequent authentication between the participants. It has thus been described as an anonymous key agreement protocol. == Symmetric key agreement == Symmetric key agreement (SKA) is a method of key agreement that uses solely symmetric cryptography and cryptographic hash functions as cryptographic primitives. It is related to symmetric authenticated key exchange. SKA may assume the use of initial shared secrets or a trusted third party with whom the agreeing parties share a secret is assumed. If no third party is present, then achieving SKA can be trivial: we tautologically assume that two parties that share an initial secret and have achieved SKA. SKA contrasts with key-agreement protocols that include techniques from asymmetric cryptography, such as key encapsulation mechanisms. The initial exchange of a shared key must be done in a manner that is private and integrity-assured. Historically, this was achieved by physical means, such as by using a trusted courier. An example of a SKA protocol is the Needham–Schroeder protocol. It establishes a session key between two parties on the same network, using a server as a trusted third party. The original Needham–Schroeder protocol is vulnerable to a replay attack. Timestamps and nonces are included to fix this attack. It forms the basis for the Kerberos protocol. === Types of key agreement === Boyd et al. classify two-party key agreement protocols according to two criteria as follows: whether a pre-shared key already exists or not the method of generating the session key. The pre-shared key may be shared between the two parties, or each party may share a key with a trusted third party. If there is no secure channel (as may be established via a pre-shared key), it is impossible to create an authenticated session key. The session key may be generated via: key transport, key agreement and hybrid. If there is no trusted third party, then the cases of key transport and hybrid session key generation are indistinguishable. SKA is concerned with protocols in which the session key is established using only symmetric primitives. == Authentication == Anonymous key exchange, like Diffie–Hellman, does not provide authentication of the parties, and is thus vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. A wide variety of cryptographic authentication schemes and protocols have been developed to provide authenticated key agreement to prevent man-in-the-middle and related attacks. These methods generally mathematically bind the agreed key to other agreed-upon data, such as the following: public–private key pairs shared secret keys passwords === Public keys === A widely used mechanism for defeating such attacks is the use of digitally signed keys that must be integrity-assured: if Bob's key is signed by a trusted third party vouching for his identity, Alice can have considerable confidence that a signed key she receives is not an attempt to intercept by Eve. When Alice and Bob have a public-key infrastructure, they may digitally sign an agreed Diffie–Hellman key, or exchanged Diffie–Hellman public keys. Such signed keys, sometimes signed by a certificate authority, are one of the primary mechanisms used for secure web traffic (including HTTPS, SSL or TLS protocols). Other specific examples are MQV, YAK and the ISAKMP component of the IPsec protocol suite for securing Internet Protocol communications. However, these systems require care in endorsing the match between identity information and public keys by certificate authorities in order to work properly. === Hybrid systems === Hybrid systems use public-key cryptography to exchange secret keys, which are then used in a symmetric-key cryptography systems. Most practical applications of cryptography use a combination of cryptographic functions to implement an overall system that provides all of the four desirable features of secure communications (confidentiality, integrity, authentication, and non-repudiation). === Passwords === Password-authenticated key agreement protocols require the separate establishment of a password (which may be smaller than a key) in a manner that is both private and integrity-assured. These are designed to resist man-in-the-middle and other active attacks on the password and the established keys. For example, DH-EKE, SPEKE, and SRP are password-authenticated variations of Diffie–Hellman. === Other tricks === If one has an integrity-assured way to verify a shared key over a public channel, one may engage in a Diffie–Hellman key exchange to derive a short-term shared key, and then subsequently authenticate that the keys match. One way is to use a voice-authenticated read-out of the key, as in PGPfone. Voice authentication, however, presumes that it is infeasible for a man-in-the-middle to spoof one participant's voice to the other in real-time, which may be an undesirable assumption. Such protocols may be designed to work with even a small public value, such as a password. Variations on this theme have been proposed for Bluetooth pairing protocols. In an attempt to avoid using any additional out-of-band authentication factors, Davies and Price proposed the use of the interlock protocol of Ron Rivest and Adi Shamir, which has been subject to both attack and subsequent refinement.
Read more →
Branch number

In cryptography, the branch number is a numerical value that characterizes the amount of diffusion introduced by a vectorial Boolean function F that maps an input vector a to output vector F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} . For the (usual) case of a linear F the value of the differential branch number is produced by: applying nonzero values of a (i.e., values that have at least one non-zero component of the vector) to the input of F; calculating for each input value a the Hamming weight W {\displaystyle W} (number of nonzero components), and adding weights W ( a ) {\displaystyle W(a)} and W ( F ( a ) ) {\displaystyle W(F(a))} together; selecting the smallest combined weight across for all nonzero input values: B d ( F ) = min a ≠ 0 ( W ( a ) + W ( F ( a ) ) ) {\displaystyle B_{d}(F)={\underset {a\neq 0}{\min }}(W(a)+W(F(a)))} . If both a and F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} have s components, the result is obviously limited on the high side by the value s + 1 {\displaystyle s+1} (this "perfect" result is achieved when any single nonzero component in a makes all components of F ( a ) {\displaystyle F(a)} to be non-zero). A high branch number suggests higher resistance to the differential cryptanalysis: the small variations of input will produce large changes on the output and in order to obtain small variations of the output, large changes of the input value will be required. The term was introduced by Daemen and Rijmen in early 2000s and quickly became a typical tool to assess the diffusion properties of the transformations. == Mathematics == The branch number concept is not limited to the linear transformations, Daemen and Rijmen provided two general metrics: differential branch number, where the minimum is obtained over inputs of F that are constructed by independently sweeping all the values of two nonzero and unequal vectors a, b ( ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } is a component-by-component exclusive-or): B d ( F ) = min a ≠ b ( W ( a ⊕ b ) + W ( F ( a ) ⊕ F ( b ) ) {\displaystyle B_{d}(F)={\underset {a\neq b}{\min }}(W(a\oplus b)+W(F(a)\oplus F(b))} ; for linear branch number, the independent candidates α {\displaystyle \alpha } and β {\displaystyle \beta } are independently swept; they should be nonzero and correlated with respect to F (the L A T ( α , β ) {\displaystyle LAT(\alpha ,\beta )} coefficient of the linear approximation table of F should be nonzero): B l ( F ) = min α ≠ 0 , β , L A T ( α , β ) ≠ 0 ( W ( α ) + W ( β ) ) {\displaystyle B_{l}(F)={\underset {\alpha \neq 0,\beta ,LAT(\alpha ,\beta )\neq 0}{\min }}(W(\alpha )+W(\beta ))} .
Read more →
Social media use in education

Social media in education is the use of social media to enhance education. Social media are "a group of Internet-based applications...that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content". It is also known as the read/write web. As time went on and technology evolved, social media has been an integral part of people's lives, including students, scholars, and teachers. However, social media are controversial because, in addition to providing new means of connection, critics claim that they damage self-esteem, shorten attention spans, and increase mental health issues. A 2016 dissertation presented surveys that focused on the impact of social media. It reported that 54.6% of students believed that social media affected their studies positively (38% agree, 16.6% strongly agree). About 40% disagreed, and 4.7% of students strongly disagreed. 53% of female students reported that social media negatively impacted their studies. Among male students, 40% agreed that social media had a negative impact on studies, while 59% disagreed. A 2023 article dives deep into the rewards system of the brain in response to social media. This study compares the social rewards system in our brain to those from social media. From ages 10-12, most are receiving a cell phone, social rewards in the brain start to feel more satisfying. Leading to adulthood, the effects of social rewards are less likely to feel reliant on feedback from peers. Equivalent to a more mature prefrontal cortex, this enables a better management of their emotional reaction to these social rewards, meaning a more balanced and controlled reaction. == History == A survey from Cambridge International of nearly 20,000 teachers and students (ages 12–19) from 100 countries found that 48% of students use a desktop computer in class, 42% uses phones, 33% use interactive whiteboards and 20% use tablets. Desktop computers are more used than tablets. Teachers were abandoning the "no phones at school" rule. A 2024 research survey through Common Sense Education reported 54% of age 8-12 and 69% of ages 13-18 social media is an extensive distraction from homework. === United States === The long-running technology boom accelerated after the millennium. As of 2018, 95% of US teenage students had access to a smartphone and 45% said they were online almost constantly. In the early days of social media, access to technology was a significant issue as many students did not own not compatible devices and school budgets were often insufficient to purchase devices for student use. Despite backlash, Missouri passed a law that prohibited teachers from communicating privately with students over social media in 2011. Supporters were concerned that online communication between underage students and faculty could lead to inappropriate relationships. Some schools adopted a "Bring Your Own Device" (BYOD) policy, allowing students to bring Internet-accessing devices, such as phones or tablets to class. During the pandemic, the federal government offered funds that allowed more schools to purchase devices. Over time, more students acquired phones with social media access. Personal devices increased student satisfaction, but reduced teachers' ability to control device use in their classrooms. A 2018 Pew Research study reported that 95% of teenagers had a phone and used social media consistently. === Canada === The Peel District School Board (PDSB) in Ontario accepted the use of social media in the classroom. In 2013, the PDSB introduced BYOD and unblocked many social media sites. That was later replaced by a policy that dealt specifically with social media. == Uses == === Classroom === In the classroom, social media offers a way to systematically distribute and gather information from students. Teachers can supply documents, and audio/video media to students for immediate or later use. One study on higher education reported that devices and social media: created opportunities for interaction provided occasions for collaboration sped up information access offered more ways to learn situated learning. Frustrations included anti-technology instructors, device challenges, and devices as a distraction. Social media in classrooms can have a negative effect. A Yale University publication reported that students who used laptops in class for non-academic reasons had poorer performance. Students spent most of their time on social media, shopping, and other personal activities. Social media has helped many educators mentor their students more effectively. === Outside of class === Social media offer a venue for video calls, stories, feeds, and game playing that can enhance the learning process. Teachers can utilize social media to communicate with their students. Social media can provide students with resources that they can utilize in essays, projects, and presentations. Students can easily access comments made by teachers and peers and offer feedback to teachers. Social media can offer students the opportunity to collaborate by sharing information without requiring face to face meetings. Social media can allow students to more easily connect with experts, to go beyond course materials. Instructors in a 2010 study reported that online technologies (social media) can help students become comfortable having discussions outside the classroom better than traditional means. Teachers may face some risk when using social media outside the classroom, without appropriate work rules. Studies explores how college students' engagement with social media platforms influences their communication preferences and habits, particularly in relation to using school email for academic purposes. === Professional development === Social media can aid professional development, as teachers become students, enhancing knowledge transfer, skill master, and collaboration. === Non-academic uses === Schools can use social media to make public announcements. Teachers and administrators can communicate other important information to parents and students and to receive feedback from them. Families can keep up with school events and policies. === Ecology education === The potential of using social media in ecological, nature and forest education include: virtual nature groups can help promote good habits in forest tourism and recreation (nature ethics), by entering general rules in the regulations by administrators, e.g. "DO NOT PICK UP PLANTS UNKNOWN TO US", which is to protects rare species from pointless picking. social media activity motivates people to learn about nature in the field, allows them to gain knowledge, dispels popular myths, enables contact with scientists and practitioners, promotes valuable literature, websites, and at the same time reveals distortions and substantive errors in popular news services. contact is not only virtual. Despite financial barriers and distance, Internet users organize nature conventions. Such meetings are an opportunity not only to make friends, but also to learn about nature together and have fun. the possibility of contact between scientists and nature lovers via Facebook has become a source of cooperation in species inventory, e.g. the online campaign of the NATRIX Herpetological Society, which consists not only of collecting reports of observations of the smooth snake by Internet users, but also of drawing attention to the biology and threats to this species. Social media has become a place where ecology education quickly reaches people of different ages and social statuses. The nature groups that have been created, in which nature lovers, biologists, foresters and scientists participate, can have a real impact on the state of knowledge and data collection through citizen science. == Apps and services == Social media can allow students to participate in their field by working with organizations outside the classroom. By offering easier access to peers outside the classroom, students can broaden their perspectives and find support resources. Social media aided learning outside of the classroom through collaboration and innovation. One specific study, "Exploring education-related use of social media," called this "audience connectors". Audience connectors bring students together while studying with WhatsApp and Facebook. This study reported that "60 percent [of students in the study] agreed that technology changes education for the better." While social media can promote a beneficial education platform, downsides exist. Students may become skilled at "lifting material from the internet" rather than enhancing their personal understanding. Another downside is student attention spans decline. A concern raised by the students of this study showed how many use spell-check as a crutch and will see a trend of points taken off when spell-check is not an option. Apps like X allowed teachers to make classroom accounts where students can learn about social media in a controlled context. Teachers can post assignments on th
Read more →
Public computer

A public computer (or public access computer) is any of various computers available in public areas. Some places where public computers may be available are libraries, schools, or dedicated facilities run by government. Public computers share similar hardware and software components to personal computers, however, the role and function of a public access computer is entirely different. A public access computer is used by many different untrusted individuals throughout the course of the day. The computer must be locked down and secure against both intentional and unintentional abuse. Users typically do not have authority to install software or change settings. A personal computer, in contrast, is typically used by a single responsible user, who can customize the machine's behavior to their preferences. Public access computers are often provided with tools such as a PC reservation system to regulate access. The world's first public access computer center was the Marin Computer Center in California, co-founded by David and Annie Fox in 1977. == Kiosks == A kiosk is a special type of public computer using software and hardware modifications to provide services only about the place the kiosk is in. For example, a movie ticket kiosk can be found at a movie theater. These kiosks are usually in a secure browser with zero access to the desktop. Many of these kiosks may run Linux, however, ATMs, a kiosk designed for depositing money, often run Windows XP. == Public computers in the United States == === Library computers === In the United States and Canada, almost all public libraries have computers available for the use of patrons, though some libraries will impose a time limit on users to ensure others will get a turn and keep the library less busy. Users are often allowed to print documents that they have created using these computers, though sometimes for a small fee. ==== Privacy ==== Privacy is an important part of the public library institution, since the libraries entitle the public to intellectual freedom. Use of any computer or network may create records of users' activities that can jeopardize their privacy. It is possible for a patron to jeopardize their privacy if they do not delete cache, clear cookies, or documents from the public computer. In order for a member of the public to remain private on a computer, the American Library Association (ALA) has guidelines. These give patrons an idea of the right way to keep using public library computers. In their provision of services to library users, librarians have an ethical responsibility, expressed in the ALA Code of Ethics, to preserve users' right to privacy. A librarian is also responsible for giving users an understanding of private patron use and access. Libraries must ensure that users have the following rights when browsing on public computers: the computer automatically will clear a users history; libraries should display privacy screens so users do not see another patron's screen; updating software for effective safety measures; restoration data software to clear documents that users may have left on their computers and to combat possible malware; security practices; and making users aware of any possible monitoring of their browsing activities. Users can also view the Library Privacy Checklist for Public Access Computers and Networks to better understand what libraries strive for when protecting privacy. === School computers === The U.S. government has given money to many school boards to purchase computers for educational applications. Schools may have multiple computer labs, which contain these computers for students to use. There is usually Internet access on these machines, but some schools will put up a blocking service to limit the websites that students are able to access to only include educational resources, such as Google. In addition to controlling the content students are viewing, putting up these blocks can also help to keep the computers safe by preventing students from downloading malware and other threats. However, the effectiveness of such content filtering systems is questionable since it can easily be circumvented by using proxy websites, Virtual Private Networks, and for some weak security systems, merely knowing the IP address of the intended website is enough to bypass the filter. School computers often have advanced operating system security to prevent tech-savvy students from inflicting damage (i.e. the Windows Registry Editor and Task Manager, etc.) are disabled on Microsoft Windows machines. Schools with very advanced tech services may also install a locked down BIOS/firmware or make kernel-level changes to the operating system, precluding the possibility of unauthorized activity.
Read more →
Netsukuku

Netsukuku is an experimental peer-to-peer routing system, developed by the FreakNet MediaLab in 2005, created to build up a distributed network, anonymous and censorship-free, fully independent but not necessarily separated from the Internet, without the support of any server, Internet service provider and no central authority. Netsukuku is designed to handle up to 2128 nodes without any servers or central systems, with minimal CPU and memory resources. This mesh network can be built using existing network infrastructure components such as Wi-Fi. The project has been in slow development since 2005, never abandoning a beta state. It has also never been tested on large scale. == Operation == As of December 2011, the latest theoretical work on Netsukuku could be found in the author's master thesis Scalable Mesh Networks and the Address Space Balancing problem. The following description takes into account only the basic concepts of the theory. Netsukuku uses a custom routing protocol called QSPN (Quantum Shortest Path Netsukuku) that strives to be efficient and not taxing on the computational capabilities of each node. The current version of the protocol is QSPNv2. It adopts a hierarchical structure. 256 nodes are grouped inside a gnode (group node), 256 gnodes are grouped in a single ggnode (group of group nodes), 256 ggnodes are grouped in a single gggnode, and so on. This offers a set of advantages main documentation. The protocol relies on the fact that the nodes are not mobile and that the network structure does not change quickly, as several minutes may be required before a change in the network is propagated. However, a node that joins the network is immediately able to communicate using the routes of its neighbors. When a node joins the mesh network, Netsukuku automatically adapts and all other nodes come to know the fastest and most efficient routes to communicate with the newcomer. Each node has no more privileges or restrictions than the other nodes. The domain name system (DNS) is replaced by a decentralised and distributed system called ANDNA (Abnormal Netsukuku Domain Name Anarchy). The ANDNA database is included in the Netsukuku system, so each node includes such database that occupies at most 355 kilobytes of memory. Simplifying, ANDNA works as follows: to resolve a symbolic name the host applies a function Hash on its behalf. The Hash function returns an address that the host contacts asking for the resolution generated by the hash. The contacted node receives a request, searches in its ANDNA database for the address associated with the name and returns it to the applicant host. Recording works in a similar way: for example, let's suppose that the node X wants to register the address FreakNet.andna; X calculates the hash name and obtains the address 11.22.33.44 associated with node Y. The node X contacts Y asking to register 11.22.33.44 as its own. Y stores the request in its database and any request for resolution of 11.22.33.44 hash, will answer with the X's address. The protocol is a little more complex than this, as the system provides a public/private key to authenticate the hosts and prevent unauthorized changes to the ANDNA database. Furthermore, the protocol provides redundancy in the database to make the protocol resistant to failure and also provides for the migration of the database if the network topology changes. The protocol does not provide for the possibility of revoking a symbolic name; after a certain period of inactivity (currently 3 days) it is simply deleted from the database. The protocol also prevents a single host from recording an excessive number of symbolic names (at present 256 names) in order to prevent spammers from storing a high number of terms to perform cybersquatting.
Read more →
Cryptographic Service Provider

A cryptographic service provider (CSP) is a package that "provides a concrete implementation of certain cryptographic services." A CSP offers operations and protocols to support a variety of use cases. The cryptographic application programming interface (API) provided by the CSP provides common solutions for different platforms, for example hardware and cloud services. == Microsoft Windows == In Microsoft Windows, a Cryptographic Service Provider is a software library that implements the Microsoft CryptoAPI (CAPI). CSPs implement encoding and decoding functions, which computer application programs may use, for example, to implement strong user authentication or for secure email. CSPs are independent modules that can be used by different applications. A user program calls CryptoAPI functions and these are redirected to CSPs functions. Since CSPs are responsible for implementing cryptographic algorithms and standards, applications do not need to be concerned about security details. Furthermore, each application can define which CSP it is going to use on its calls to CryptoAPI. In fact, all cryptographic activity is implemented in CSPs. CryptoAPI only works as a bridge between the application and the CSP. CSPs are implemented basically as a special type of DLL with special restrictions on loading and use. Every CSP must be digitally signed by Microsoft and the signature is verified when Windows loads the CSP. In addition, after being loaded, Windows periodically re-scans the CSP to detect tampering, either by malicious software such as computer viruses or by the user him/herself trying to circumvent restrictions (for example on cryptographic key length) that might be built into the CSP's code. To obtain a signature, non-Microsoft CSP developers must supply paperwork to Microsoft promising to obey various legal restrictions and giving valid contact information. As of circa 2000, Microsoft did not charge any fees to supply these signatures. For development and testing purposes, a CSP developer can configure Windows to recognize the developer's own signatures instead of Microsoft's, but this is a somewhat complex and obscure operation unsuitable for nontechnical end users. The CAPI/CSP architecture had its origins in the era of restrictive US government controls on the export of cryptography. Microsoft's default or "base" CSP then included with Windows was limited to 512-bit RSA public-key cryptography and 40-bit symmetric cryptography, the maximum key lengths permitted in exportable mass market software at the time. CSPs implementing stronger cryptography were available only to U.S. residents, unless the CSPs themselves had received U.S. government export approval. The system of requiring CSPs to be signed only on presentation of completed paperwork was intended to prevent the easy spread of unauthorized CSPs implemented by anonymous or foreign developers. As such, it was presented as a concession made by Microsoft to the government, in order to get export approval for the CAPI itself. After the Bernstein v. United States court decision establishing computer source code as protected free speech and the transfer of cryptographic regulatory authority from the U.S. State Department to the more pro-export Commerce Department, the restrictions on key lengths were dropped, and the CSPs shipped with Windows now include full-strength cryptography. The main use of third-party CSPs is to interface with external cryptography hardware such as hardware security modules (HSM) or smart cards. === Smart Card CSP === These cryptographic functions can be realized by a smart card, thus the Smart Card CSP is the Microsoft way of a PKCS#11. Microsoft Windows is identifying the correct Smart Card CSP, which have to be used, analyzing the answer to reset (ATR) of the smart card, which is registered in the Windows Registry. Installing a new CSP, all ATRs of the supported smart cards are enlisted in the registry. === Use of CSP in MS Office password protection === Cryptographic service providers can be used for encryption of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint documents starting from Microsoft Office XP. A standard encryption algorithm with a 40-bit key is used by default, but enabling a CSP enhances key length and thus makes decryption process more continuous. This only applies to passwords that are required to open document because this password type is the only one that encrypts a password-protected document.
Read more →