AI Essay Verification

AI Essay Verification — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Structured sparsity regularization

Structured sparsity regularization is a class of methods, and an area of research in statistical learning theory, that extend and generalize sparsity regularization learning methods. Both sparsity and structured sparsity regularization methods seek to exploit the assumption that the output variable Y {\displaystyle Y} (i.e., response, or dependent variable) to be learned can be described by a reduced number of variables in the input space X {\displaystyle X} (i.e., the domain, space of features or explanatory variables). Sparsity regularization methods focus on selecting the input variables that best describe the output. Structured sparsity regularization methods generalize and extend sparsity regularization methods, by allowing for optimal selection over structures like groups or networks of input variables in X {\displaystyle X} . Common motivation for the use of structured sparsity methods are model interpretability, high-dimensional learning (where dimensionality of X {\displaystyle X} may be higher than the number of observations n {\displaystyle n} ), and reduction of computational complexity. Moreover, structured sparsity methods allow to incorporate prior assumptions on the structure of the input variables, such as overlapping groups, non-overlapping groups, and acyclic graphs. Examples of uses of structured sparsity methods include face recognition, magnetic resonance image (MRI) processing, socio-linguistic analysis in natural language processing, and analysis of genetic expression in breast cancer. == Definition and related concepts == === Sparsity regularization === Consider the linear kernel regularized empirical risk minimization problem with a loss function V ( y i , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle V(y_{i},f(x))} and the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm" as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( y i , ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(y_{i},\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where x , w ∈ R d {\displaystyle x,w\in \mathbb {R^{d}} } , and ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", defined as the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . f ( x ) = ⟨ w , x i ⟩ {\displaystyle f(x)=\langle w,x_{i}\rangle } is said to be sparse if ‖ w ‖ 0 = s < d {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}=s 0 {\displaystyle w_{j}>0} . However, as in this case groups may overlap, we take the intersection of the complements of those groups that are not set to zero. This intersection of complements selection criteria implies the modeling choice that we allow some coefficients within a particular group g {\displaystyle g} to be set to zero, while others within the same group g {\displaystyle g} may remain positive. In other words, coefficients within a group may differ depending on the several group memberships that each variable within the group may have. ==== Union of groups: latent group Lasso ==== A different approach is to consider union of groups for variable selection. This approach captures the modeling situation where variables can be selected as long as they belong at least to one group with positive coefficients. This modeling perspective implies that we want to preserve group structure. The formulation of the union of groups approach is also referred to as latent group Lasso, and requires to modify the group ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm considered above and introduce the following regularizer R ( w ) = i n f { ∑ g ‖ w g ‖ g : w = ∑ g = 1 G w ¯ g } {\displaystyle R(w)=inf\left\{\sum _{g}\|w_{g}\|_{g}:w=\sum _{g=1}^{G}{\bar {w}}_{g}\right\}} where w ∈ R d {\displaystyle w\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} , w g ∈ G g {\displaystyle w_{g}\in G_{g}} is the vector of coefficients of group g, and w ¯ g ∈ R d {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{g}\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} is a vector with coefficients w g j {\displaystyle w_{g}^{j}} for all variables j {
Read more →
SPKAC

SPKAC (Signed Public Key and Challenge, also known as Netscape SPKI) is a format for sending a certificate signing request (CSR): it encodes a public key, that can be manipulated using OpenSSL. It is created using the little documented HTML keygen element inside a number of Netscape compatible browsers. == Standardisation == There exists an ongoing effort to standardise SPKAC through an Internet Draft in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The purpose of this work has been to formally define what has existed prior as a de facto standard, and to address security deficiencies, particular with respect to historic insecure use of MD5 that has since been declared unsafe for use with digital signatures. == Implementations == HTML5 originally specified the element to support SPKAC in the browser to make it easier to create client side certificates through a web service for protocols such as WebID; however, subsequent work for HTML 5.1 placed the keygen element "at-risk", and the first public working draft of HTML 5.2 removes the keygen element entirely. The removal of the keygen element is due to non-interoperability and non-conformity from a standards perspective in addition to security concerns. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Authentication Working Group developed the WebAuthn (Web Authentication) API to replace the keygen element. Bouncy Castle provides a Java class. An implementation for Erlang/OTP exists too. An implementation for Python is named pyspkac. PHP OpenSSL extension as of version 5.6.0. Node.js implementation. === Deficiencies === The user interface needs to be improved in browsers, to make it more obvious to users when a server is asking for the client certificate.
Read more →
Social bot

A social bot, refers to fully or partially automated social media accounts designed to perform most regular users’ actions, such as liking, posting content, and chatting with other users. Although their levels of autonomy vary, and often include a human-in-the-loop, social bots can use artificial intelligence to perform social media actions and can use large language models to mimic human dialogue. Social bots can operate alone or in groups that coordinate messaging as part of a network of coordinated inauthentic behavior. Social bots are often used to perform ad fraud by artificially boosting viewership and engagement metrics and to spread disinformation on social media. == Uses == Social bots are used for a large number of purposes on a variety of social media platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. One common use of social bots is to inflate a social media user's apparent popularity, usually by artificially manipulating their engagement metrics with large volumes of fake likes, reposts, or replies. Social bots can similarly be used to artificially inflate a user's follower count with fake followers, creating a false perception of a larger and more influential online following than is the case. The use of social bots to create the impression of a large social media influence allows individuals, brands, and organizations to attract a higher number of human followers and boost their online presence. Fake engagement can be bought and sold in the black market of social media engagement. Corporations typically use automated customer service agents on social media to affordably manage high levels of support requests. Social bots are used to send automated responses to users’ questions, sometimes prompting the user to private message the support account with additional information. The increased use of automated support bots and virtual assistants has led to some companies laying off customer-service staff. Social bots are also often used to influence public opinion. Autonomous bot accounts can flood social media with large numbers of posts expressing support for certain products, companies, or political campaigns, creating the impression of organic grassroots support. This can create a false perception of the number of people who support a certain position, which may also have effects on the direction of stock prices or on elections. Messages with similar content can also influence fads or trends. Many social bots are also used to amplify phishing attacks. These malicious bots are used to trick a social media user into giving up their passwords or other personal data. This is usually accomplished by posting links claiming to direct users to news articles that would in actuality direct to malicious websites containing malware. Scammers often use URL shortening services such as TinyURL and bit.ly to disguise a link's domain address, increasing the likelihood of a user clicking the malicious link. The presence of fake social media followers and high levels of engagement help convince the victim that the scammer is in fact a trusted user. Social bots can be a tool for computational propaganda. Bots can also be used for algorithmic curation, algorithmic radicalization, and/or influence-for-hire, a term that refers to the selling of an account on social media platforms. == History == Bots have coexisted with computer technology since the earliest days of computing. Social bots have their roots in the 1950s with Alan Turing, whose work focused on machine intelligence with the development of the Turing Test. The following decades saw further progress made towards the goal of creating programs capable of mimicking human behavior, notably with Joseph Weizenbaum’s creation of ELIZA. Considered to be one of the first Chatbots, ELIZA could simulate natural conversations with human users through pattern matching. Its most famous script was DOCTOR, a simulation of a Rogerian psychotherapist that was programmed to chat with patients and respond to questions. With the growth of social media platforms in the early 2000s, these bots could be used to interact with much larger user groups in an inconspicuous manner. Early instances of autonomous agents on social media could be found on sites like MySpace, with social bots being used by marketing firms to inflate activity on a user’s page in an effort to make them appear more popular. Social bots have been observed on a large variety of social media websites, with Twitter being one of the most widely observed examples. The creation of Twitter bots is generally against the site’s terms of service when used to post spam or to automatically like and follow other users, but some degree of automation using Twitter’s API may be permitted if used for “entertainment, informational, or novelty purposes.” Other platforms such as Reddit and Discord also allow for the use of social bots as long as they are not used to violate policies regarding harmful content and abusive behavior. Social media platforms have developed their own automated tools to filter out messages that come from bots, although they cannot detect all bot messages. == Legal regulation == Due to the difficulty of recognizing social bots and separating them from "eligible" automation via social media APIs, it is unclear how legal regulation can be enforced. Social bots are expected to play a role in shaping public opinion by autonomously acting as influencers. Some social bots have been used to rapidly spread misinformation, manipulate stock markets, influence opinion on companies and brands, promote political campaigns, and engage in malicious phishing campaigns. In the United States, some states have started to implement legislation in an attempt to regulate the use of social bots. In 2019, California passed the Bolstering Online Transparency Act (the B.O.T. Act) to make it unlawful to use automated software to appear indistinguishable from humans for the purpose of influencing a social media user's purchasing and voting decisions. Other states such as Utah and Colorado have passed similar bills to restrict the use of social bots. The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) in the European Union is the first comprehensive law governing the use of Artificial Intelligence. The law requires transparency in AI to prevent users from being tricked into believing they are communicating with another human. AI-generated content on social media must be clearly marked as such, preventing social bots from using AI in a manner that mimics human behavior. == Detection == The first generation of bots could sometimes be distinguished from real users by their often superhuman capacities to post messages. Later developments have succeeded in imprinting more "human" activity and behavioral patterns in the agent. With enough bots, it might be even possible to achieve artificial social proof. To unambiguously detect social bots as what they are, a variety of criteria must be applied together using pattern detection techniques, some of which are: cartoon figures as user pictures sometimes also random real user pictures are captured (identity fraud) reposting rate temporal patterns sentiment expression followers-to-friends ratio length of user names variability in (re)posted messages engagement rate (like/followers rate) analysis of the time series of social media posts Social bots are always becoming increasingly difficult to detect and understand. The bots' human-like behavior, ever-changing behavior of the bots, and the sheer volume of bots covering every platform may have been a factor in the challenges of removing them. Social media sites, like Twitter, are among the most affected, with CNBC reporting up to 48 million of the 319 million users (roughly 15%) were bots in 2017. Botometer (formerly BotOrNot) is a public Web service that checks the activity of a Twitter account and gives it a score based on how likely the account is to be a bot. The system leverages over a thousand features. An active method for detecting early spam bots was to set up honeypot accounts that post nonsensical content, which may get reposted (retweeted) by the bots. However, bots evolve quickly, and detection methods have to be updated constantly, because otherwise they may get useless after a few years. One method is the use of Benford's Law for predicting the frequency distribution of significant leading digits to detect malicious bots online. This study was first introduced at the University of Pretoria in 2020. Another method is artificial-intelligence-driven detection. Some of the sub-categories of this type of detection would be active learning loop flow, feature engineering, unsupervised learning, supervised learning, and correlation discovery. Some operations of bots work together in a synchronized way. For example, ISIS used Twitter to amplify its Islamic content by numerous orchestrated accounts which further pushed an item to the Hot List news, thus further a
Read more →
Media engagement framework

The media engagement framework is a planning framework used by marketing professionals to understand the behavior of social media marketing-based audiences. The construct was introduced in the book, ROI of Social Media. Powell’s background in marketing ROI and Groves' experience and understanding of the applications of social media in business led to a collaboration. Dimos joined as a brand strategist for Litmus Group, a global management consulting firm. The media engagement framework consists of the definitions of personas (Individuals, Consumers and Influencers), referenced by the competitive set or constraint that applies to that persona and the measurement framework that might be applied to those personas. It is referenced at the center of the marketing process diagram, surrounded by the marketing functions of strategy, tactics, metrics and ROI. The marketing process diagram describes how the media engagement framework can apply to any strategic marketing activity but was developed to establish a completely integrated framework describing how both traditional and social media marketing activities can be planned, executed, measured and improved. == Application == The media engagement framework provides a strategic planning construct in which measurements and metrics play a crucial role. Applying the media engagement framework aids in the development and management of an effective online marketing presence leveraging social media to engage a market or audience. By first personifying the audience, the marketer is able to identify the limiting aspect of the engagements possible with that audience segment and then, understand the type of engagement metrics to apply. Each persona makes decisions differently about how he/she acts in the social media universe. A framework metric can be applied for each of these personas: Endorsement funnel for influencers Community engagement funnel for individuals Purchase funnel for consumers Individuals, influencers and consumers make decisions based on alternatives available to them and constraints put on them. To engage with an individual brands must realize they are competing against the time an individual spends on line. If they find something else more engaging, they will engage with that activity. Brands compete against other brands for the purchases of consumers acting in the category. Lastly, influencers have only so many endorsements they can make and therefore brands compete with other endorsers for the endorsement of an influencer. Creating engaging content by keeping target audience in mind like create content that audience find it funny, interesting, and relatable will encourage audience to share it on social networks. Which will be beneficial for you brand, getting more people to know about your business and brand. Contact Digilord to create engaging content for your brand. Use of listening tools (Google Alerts, Twitter Search, SocialMention.com, Veooz.com, Alterian SM2, Radian6, Sysomos, Buzzient etc.) can be employed within the model to help identify the members of the audience segment and to support the formation of other social engagement planning and management tools.
Read more →
Computer Dreams

Computer Dreams is a 1988 film created by Digital Vision Entertainment and released by MPI Home Video. Written, produced and directed by Geoffrey de Valois and hosted by Amanda Pays, it consists primarily of clips and behind-the-scenes work of early computer graphics animation. Notably included are Luxo Jr. and Red's Dream, the first two short films from Pixar. The film is an hour long and features an electronic score by Music Fantastic. It was revised and re-released on DVD as The History of Computer Animation, Volume 2. It won the Winner Gold Special Jury Award at the 1989 Houston International Film Festival, and the 1989 Golden Decade Award from the US Film & Video Festival. Music used includes: Gail Lennon - Desire, Gail Lennon - Like A Dream, Shandi Sinnamon - Making It,
Read more →
Airborne Networking

An Airborne Network (AN) is the infrastructure owned by the United States Air Force that provides communication transport services through at least one node that is on a platform capable of flight. == Background == === Definition === The intent of the US Air Force's Airborne Network is to expand the Global Information Grid (GIG) to connect the three major domains of warfare: Air, Space, and Terrestrial. The Transformational Satellite Communications System network currently provides connectivity for all communication through space assets. The Combat Information Transport System and Theater Deployable Communications provide terrestrial connectivity for theatre based operations. The Airborne Network is engineered to utilize all airborne assets to connect with space and surface networks building a seamless communications platform across all domains. === Capabilities === The capabilities identified by this type of system are vastly beyond that of our current military. This system will enable the Air Force to provide a transportable network, flexible enough to communicate with any air, space, or ground asset in the area. The network will provide a beyond line-of-sight (LoS) communications infrastructure that can be packed up and moved in and out of the designated battlespace, enabling the military to have a reliable and secure communications network that extends globally. The network is designed to be flexible enough to provide the right communication and network packages for a specific region, mission, or technology. Operationally, The AN is designed to be self-forming, self-organizing, and self-generating, with nodes joining and leaving the network as they enter and exit a specific region. The network consists of dedicated tactical links, wideband air-to-air links, and ad hoc networks constructed by the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) networking services. JTRS is a software-defined radio that will work with many existing military and civilian radios. It includes integrated encryption and Wideband Networking Software to create mobile ad hoc networks. It also provides system performance analysis and fault diagnostics automatically, reducing the demand for human intervention and network maintenance. === Intended Use === The AN was designed as the cornerstone for the new military doctrine known as Network Centric Warfare. This doctrine was developed to use information superiority to equip warfighters with more precise information enabling commanders and shooters to make smarter decisions faster. The AN contributes to Network Centric Warfare by enabling commanders to provide real-time information to warfighters in the air and on the ground. Warfighters can then utilize more information and make more educated decisions about how to act in a particular situation. Once the act has been carried out commanders will have immediate information about the result and can make judgments on how to continue. All-in-all the AN was designed to reduce the time necessary to identify a target, make clear and educated decisions to pull or not to pull the trigger, and assess battle == Topologies == There are four main network topologies that will be deployed and vary based on the placement of backbone and subnet class networks. === Space, Air, Ground Tether === Establishing a direct connection to another aircraft or ground node, via a point-to-point link for nodes within LOS or via a Satellite Communications (SATCOM) link for nodes that are beyond line-of-sight is known as tethering. SATCOM links provide connectivity to a network ground entry point. Strike aircraft that accompany C2 aircraft such as an AWACS are tethered via point-to-point links. Finally, C2 or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissnce (ISR) aircraft may connect via a LOS link directly to a network ground entry point. Each of these tethered alternatives works exactly like a hub or switch that has an entry point to a larger network and allows their connected users access to that network. === Flat Ad Hoc === A flat ad hoc topology refers to establishing nonpersistent network connections as needed among AN nodes that are present at a given time. With this network the nodes dynamically “discover” other nodes to which they can interconnect and form the network. The specific interconnections between the nodes are not planned in advance, but are made as opportunities arise. The nodes join and leave the network at will, continually changing connections to neighbor nodes based upon their location and mobility characteristics. === Tiered Ad Hoc === Ad hoc networks can be flat in the sense that all nodes are peers of each other in a single network, as discussed above, or they can dynamically organize themselves into hierarchical tiers such that higher tiers are used to move data between more localized subnets. This network topology can be compared to any conventional deployed network that utilizes routers, switches, and hubs to temporarily connect users. === Persistent Backbone === A network topology characterized by a persistent backbone is established using relatively persistent wideband connections among high-value platforms flying relatively stable orbits. It provides the connectivity between the tactical subnets which are considered edge networks relative to the backbone. This provides concentration points for connectivity to the space backbone as well as to terrestrial networks. This type of network topology is comparable to a conventional permanent network with established data trunks, routers, switches, and hubs to connect users. == Architecture == === Network Management === The platform management system enables operators to manage all on-board network elements. It interfaces and interoperates with the Airborne Network management system to enable operators to manage remote network elements in the airborne network. The network management system monitors the health of the network by passively testing the network for faults and latency. The system will also actively troubleshoot faults with probes to identify and isolate faulty connections, and enables operators to apply network parameters and security changes to all systems based on the status of the network. === Routing/Switching === Routing and switching enables data to be dynamically transmitted over the network to other nodes. Routing protocols must be able to identify nodes transmitted within their own platform and data to be sent to other platforms regardless of the current topology. The routing protocol must also provide seamless roaming by ensuring that no routed packets are lost when a node changes its point of attachment to the network. Maintaining scalability is important in routing as the network is constantly changing. The network must be able to function with numerous levels of platforms, varying numbers of fast moving platforms, and varying amounts of traffic per platform. Routers and switches will use metrics to determine the best paths to take when routing data. The routing protocol utilized for the AN will be an Adaptive Quality of Service routing protocol. === Gateways/Proxies === Gateways and proxies enable the connection numerous technology types regardless of age to communicate across the IP-based network. Gateways and proxies are essential in the operation of this network because so many different technologies are used to communicate in each domain. These systems will facilitate the transition of the legacy on-board infrastructure, transmission systems, tactical data link systems, and user applications to the objective airborne network systems. Therefore, they are only temporary until all platforms use a standardized IP radio for transmission. === Performance Enhancing Proxies === Performance Enhancing Proxies improve the performance of user applications running across the Airborne Network by countering wireless network impairments, such as limited bandwidth, long delays, high loss rates, and disruptions in network connections. Proxy systems are implemented between the user application and the network and can be used to improve performance at the application and transport functional layers of the OSI model. Some techniques that can be employed include: Compression: Data compression or header compression can be used to minimize the number of bits sent over the network. Data bundling: Smaller data packets can be combined (bundled) into a single large packet for transmission over the network. Caching: A local cache can be used to save and provide data objects that are requested multiple times, reducing transmissions over the network (and improving response times). Store and forward: Message queuing can be used to ensure message delivery to users who become disconnected from the network or are unable to connect to the network for a period of time. Once the platform connects, the stored messages are sent. Pipelining: Rather than opening several separate network connections pipelining can be used to share a single networ
Read more →
Social business model

The social business model is use of social media tools and social networking behavioral standards by businesses for communication with customers, suppliers, and others. Combining social networking etiquette (being helpful, transparent and authentic) with business engagement on LinkedIn (for one-to-one interaction), Twitter (for immediacy) and Facebook (for content sharing) more fully involves employees in the organization and increases customer intimacy and trust. == Overview == Traditional business models, particularly in large organizations, have had as one common characteristic careful limitation of direct contact between those within the organization and those outside of it. Only certain specific individuals (most frequently in roles such as sales, customer service and field consulting) were designated as "customer-facing" personnel. Organizations further limited outside access to internal employees through filtering mechanisms such as publishing only a main switchboard number (whether routed through a live receptionist or an interactive voice response system) and generic "sales@" or "info@" email addresses. The Cluetrain Manifesto (written by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger and published in 1999) was among the first books to predict the demise of this old order and the emergence of more open business models, though most of the business world was slow to adopt the book's recommended cultural changes. Thirteen years later, authors Dion Hinchcliffe and Peter Kim added structural underpinnings to the cultural shifts outlined in The Cluetrain Manifesto in their book, Social Business by Design. The book details many of the ways social media tools and practices are being adopted within organizations, to support both internal employee collaboration and external customer engagement (which the authors describe as the "bigger problem"). == Elements == In implementing the social business model, organizations apply social networking protocols and tools in a range of areas, potentially including: Marketing Customer Support Recruiting Crowdsourcing Internal employee collaboration Sales Product Development Supply Chain Operations Investor Relations == Characteristics of organizations adopting the social business model == Organizations that fully adopt the social business model will exhibit four key characteristics: Connected – employees will be able to seamlessly engage one-on-one in real-time with other employees and individuals outside the organization (customers, prospects, partners, media, etc.) using a variety of communications methods including text chat, voice, file sharing, email, and video chat. Social – employees will follow social networking etiquette (being authentic, helpful and transparent) in external interactions. The focus will be on answering questions and providing information rather than overt sales or promotion. Presence – these conversations may originate on the company's website or elsewhere online (e.g., publication websites, industry portals, or social networking sites such as LinkedIn or Facebook). Intelligent – organizations will use in-depth analytics to monitor connections, social interactions and presence; measure corresponding business results; and continually adjust and improve practices for increased effectiveness. == Technical and functional requirements == While much of the change inherent in adopting the social business model is cultural, it also requires process changes enabled by social business technology. Functional requirements for a social business technology platform include: Analytics (including the cost of engagement as well as various measures of return on investment such as leads, sales, referrals, recommendations, and retained customers). Integration with other social media and business tools such as CRM systems, partner relationship management (PRM) software, product development, website analytics, and employee-recruiting applications. Rules-based workflow (e.g. routing a comment to the appropriate individual for a response, based on content). Geolocation (so customers or prospects can be automatically routed to local sales or customer service representatives). Content sharing. Collaboration tools. Transparency (i.e., people should know who they are engaging with) Unified communications (the ability to engage via voice, text, video, email, and share a wide variety of file types) Storage (the ability to store interactions for legal, training, compliance or compensation purposes, and purge stored data when no longer needed based on company policy or regulatory requirements). Immediacy (real-time monitoring and response).
Read more →
Multiple encryption

Multiple encryption is the process of encrypting an already encrypted message one or more times, either using the same or a different algorithm. It is also known as cascade encryption, cascade ciphering, cipher stacking, multiple encryption, and superencipherment. Superencryption refers to the outer-level encryption of a multiple encryption. Some cryptographers, like Matthew Green of Johns Hopkins University, say multiple encryption addresses a problem that mostly doesn't exist: Modern ciphers rarely get broken... You’re far more likely to get hit by malware or an implementation bug than you are to suffer a catastrophic attack on Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). However, from the previous quote an argument for multiple encryption can be made, namely poor implementation. Using two different cryptomodules and keying processes from two different vendors requires both vendors' wares to be compromised for security to fail completely. == Independent keys == Picking any two ciphers, if the key used is the same for both, the second cipher could possibly undo the first cipher, partly or entirely. This is true of ciphers where the decryption process is exactly the same as the encryption process (a reciprocal cipher) – the second cipher would completely undo the first. If an attacker were to recover the key through cryptanalysis of the first encryption layer, the attacker could possibly decrypt all the remaining layers, assuming the same key is used for all layers. To prevent that risk, one can use keys that are statistically independent for each layer (e.g. independent RNGs). Ideally each key should have separate and different generation, sharing, and management processes. == Independent Initialization Vectors == For en/decryption processes that require sharing an Initialization Vector (IV) / nonce these are typically, openly shared or made known to the recipient (and everyone else). Its good security policy never to provide the same data in both plaintext and ciphertext when using the same key and IV. Therefore, its recommended (although at this moment without specific evidence) to use separate IVs for each layer of encryption. == Importance of the first layer == With the exception of the one-time pad, no cipher has been theoretically proven to be unbreakable. Furthermore, some recurring properties may be found in the ciphertexts generated by the first cipher. Since those ciphertexts are the plaintexts used by the second cipher, the second cipher may be rendered vulnerable to attacks based on known plaintext properties (see references below). This is the case when the first layer is a program P that always adds the same string S of characters at the beginning (or end) of all ciphertexts (commonly known as a magic number). When found in a file, the string S allows an operating system to know that the program P has to be launched in order to decrypt the file. This string should be removed before adding a second layer. To prevent this kind of attack, one can use the method provided by Bruce Schneier: Generate a random pad R of the same size as the plaintext. Encrypt R using the first cipher and key. XOR the plaintext with the pad, then encrypt the result using the second cipher and a different (!) key. Concatenate both ciphertexts in order to build the final ciphertext. A cryptanalyst must break both ciphers to get any information. This will, however, have the drawback of making the ciphertext twice as long as the original plaintext. Note, however, that a weak first cipher may merely make a second cipher that is vulnerable to a chosen plaintext attack also vulnerable to a known plaintext attack. However, a block cipher must not be vulnerable to a chosen plaintext attack to be considered secure. Therefore, the second cipher described above is not secure under that definition, either. Consequently, both ciphers still need to be broken. The attack illustrates why strong assumptions are made about secure block ciphers and ciphers that are even partially broken should never be used. == The Rule of Two == The Rule of Two is a data security principle from the NSA's Commercial Solutions for Classified Program (CSfC). It specifies two completely independent layers of cryptography to protect data. For example, data could be protected by both hardware encryption at its lowest level and software encryption at the application layer. It could mean using two FIPS-validated software cryptomodules from different vendors to en/decrypt data. The importance of vendor and/or model diversity between the layers of components centers around removing the possibility that the manufacturers or models will share a vulnerability. This way if one components is compromised there is still an entire layer of encryption protecting the information at rest or in transit. The CSfC Program offers solutions to achieve diversity in two ways. "The first is to implement each layer using components produced by different manufacturers. The second is to use components from the same manufacturer, where that manufacturer has provided NSA with sufficient evidence that the implementations of the two components are independent of one another." The principle is practiced in the NSA's secure mobile phone called Fishbowl. The phones use two layers of encryption protocols, IPsec and Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP), to protect voice communications. The Samsung Galaxy S9 Tactical Edition is also an approved CSfC Component.
Read more →
LENA Foundation

The LENA Foundation is an American nonprofit organisation which provides tools for measuring children's language acquisition and exposure. Specifically, the LENA system consists of a digital language processor which is worn by a child and records and analyses their auditory environment, using propriety software. It then presents a summary of child-adult conversation, such as conversation turns and word counts. The purpose of the LENA system is to encourage interactive talk between children (between the age of two to forty-eight months) and their caretakers. The LENA system is also used for research; while useful for researchers who wish to save transcription costs or observe the child in its natural state, the accuracy of this system, while often quite high, varies between contexts, for example notably in the case of hard of hearing children. Because of this, several researchers recommend caution in using only the LENA system on its own for the purposes of scientific research. == History == The LENA Foundation was established in 2009 by Terrance and Judith Paul, founders of Renaissance Learning, Inc., with the purpose of aiding children with disabilities and assisting with early learning. They were inspired by the book "Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of American Children" by Dr. Betty Hart and Dr. Todd Risley. A pilot version of the LENA system was launched in February 2006. The LENA Research Foundation was registered as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit in September 2010. The organisation was renamed simply LENA in 2018 and adopted the tagline "Building brains through early talk." LENA has been used for parental feedback, linguistics or paediatrics research, and for specific clinical cases. == Scientific background == In 2018, research using the LENA system showed that there was a link between children's conversational turns and activation of Broca's area (a part of the brain responsible, although not necessarily essential, for language processing). The LENA foundation cites research by its own employees as evidence for the scientific basis of its technology. Said research claims that verbal interaction with young children has an effect on language acquisition, including verbal comprehension skills during adolescence. == LENA System == The LENA software analyses a child's natural language environment, such as verbal exposure, and provides several metrics, such as adult and child speech time, television/recorded audio time, word count, or conversation turn count. The LENA hardware is a recorder that is usually placed into a child's specially-designed vest. The software was trained on over 65,000 hours of manually annotated American English audio recordings. It splits the audio into segments which are categorised as "key child", "other child", "male adult", "noise", etc. The advantages of LENA as opposed to manual transcription are its speed and ease of use; the disadvantages are its potential inaccuracies and lack of transcription capability (which LENA does not profess to attempt). The LENA system has also been criticised for prioritising quantity of speaking over quality (i.e., mastery of the language, as opposed to babble). == Product lines == === LENA Start === LENA Start is a program for parents that utilises feedback from the LENA System in conjunction with weekly group sessions in order to address the home language environment. It was introduced in 2015 and implemented across several U.S. states. In October 2020, during the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, Read Aloud Delaware began a virtual LENA Start program with families statewide, where parents received feedback and participated in one-hour Zoom workshops each week during the 10-week program. === LENA Grow === LENA Grow is a professional development program for teachers in early childhood classrooms. Before launching at sites around the country, the program was first piloted in Escambia County, Florida. === LENA Home === LENA Home is a supplement to existing parent coaching curricula. Typically, home visitors facilitate the use of the LENA System to help parents track their progress towards increasing interactive talk in their homes. === Developmental Snapshot === The LENA Developmental Snapshot, based on a 52-question parent survey, assesses both expressive and receptive language skills and provides an estimate of a child's developmental age from 2 months to 36 months.
Read more →
WYSIWYS

In cryptography, What You See Is What You Sign (WYSIWYS) is a property of digital signature systems that ensures the semantic content of signed messages can not be changed, either by accident or intent. == Mechanism of WYSIWYS == When digitally signing a document, the integrity of the signature relies not just on the soundness of the digital signature algorithms that are used, but also on the security of the computing platform used to sign the document. The WYSIWYS property of digital signature systems aims to tackle this problem by defining a desirable property that the visual representation of a digital document should be consistent across computing systems, particularly at the points of digital signature and digital signature verification. It is relatively easy to change the interpretation of a digital document by implementing changes on the computer system where the document is being processed, and the greater the semantic distance, the easier it gets. From a semantic perspective this creates uncertainty about what exactly has been signed. WYSIWYS is a property of a digital signature system that ensures that the semantic interpretation of a digitally signed message cannot be changed, either by accident or by intent. This property also ensures that a digital document to be signed can not contain hidden semantic content that can be revealed after the signature has been applied. Though a WYSIWYS implementation is only as secure as the computing platform it is running on, various methods have been proposed to make WYSIWYS more robust. The term WYSIWYS was coined by Peter Landrock and Torben Pedersen to describe some of the principles in delivering secure and legally binding digital signatures for Pan-European projects.
Read more →
Strong secrecy

Strong secrecy is a term used in formal proof-based cryptography for making propositions about the security of cryptographic protocols. It is a stronger notion of security than syntactic (or weak) secrecy. Strong secrecy is related with the concept of semantic security or indistinguishability used in the computational proof-based approach. Bruno Blanchet provides the following definition for strong secrecy: Strong secrecy means that an adversary cannot see any difference when the value of the secret changes For example, if a process encrypts a message m an attacker can differentiate between different messages, since their ciphertexts will be different. Thus m is not a strong secret. If however, probabilistic encryption were used, m would be a strong secret. The randomness incorporated into the encryption algorithm will yield different ciphertexts for the same value of m.
Read more →
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision

Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is a cryptocurrency that is a hard fork of Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Satoshi Vision was created in November 2018 by a group of individuals led by Craig Steven Wright, who has claimed since 2015 to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of the original bitcoin. == History == === 2018 split from Bitcoin Cash === On 15 November 2018, a hard fork chain split of Bitcoin Cash occurred between two rival factions called Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. On 15 November 2018 Bitcoin Cash traded at about $289, and Bitcoin SV traded at about $96.50, down from $425.01 on 14 November for the un-split Bitcoin Cash. The split originated from what was described as a "civil war" in two competing Bitcoin Cash camps. The first camp, supported by entrepreneur Roger Ver and Jihan Wu of Bitmain, promoted the software entitled Bitcoin ABC (short for Adjustable Blocksize Cap), which would maintain the block size at 32 MB. The second camp led by Craig Steven Wright and billionaire Calvin Ayre put forth a competing software version Bitcoin SV, short for "Bitcoin Satoshi Vision", which would increase the block size limit to 128 MB. === 2019 de-listing from Binance === In April 2019, an online feud broke out between those who supported the claims of Bitcoin SV supporter Craig Wright that he was Satoshi Nakamoto, and those who did not. The feud resulted in cryptocurrency exchange Binance de-listing Bitcoin SV from their platform, stating that: At Binance, we periodically review each digital asset we list to ensure that it continues to meet the high level of standard we expect. When a coin or token no longer meets this standard, or the industry changes, we conduct a more in-depth review and potentially delist it. We believe this best protects all of our users. When we conduct these reviews, we consider a variety of factors. Here are some that drive whether we decide to delist a digital asset: Commitment of team to project Level and quality of development activity Network / smart contract stability Level of public communication Responsiveness to our periodic due diligence requests Evidence of unethical / fraudulent conduct Contribution to a healthy and sustainable crypto ecosystem === 2021 network attack === In August 2021, Bitcoin SV suffered a 51% attack, after previously suffering attacks in June and July of the same year. Such an attack involves cryptocurrency miners gaining control of more than half of a network's computing power; these kinds of network attacks have the goal of preventing new transactions from gaining confirmations, allowing the attackers to double-spend coins. Adam James, senior editor at OKEx Insights claimed that "In the intermediate term, the attack has seemingly somewhat-negligible impact on its current price action," however "Faith in [Bitcoin SV] will likely be reduced following the incident." === 2024 high court ruling === In March 2024, Mr Justice James Mellor in the British High Court ruled that Wright is not Satoshi Nakamoto.
Read more →
Telligent Community

Telligent Community is a community and collaboration software platform developed by Telligent Systems and was first released in 2004. Telligent Community is built on the Telligent Evolution platform, with a variety of core applications running on top of it such as blogs, forums, media galleries, and wikis. Additional applications from third parties using the API's and REST stack can be installed or integrated with the platform. Telligent Community is built with ASP.NET, C#, and Microsoft SQL Server. It is available as downloadable software that can be installed on a web server or via hosting providers. The current version is Verint Community 12.0 which was released February 2012. The product used to be named Community Server before being rebranded as part of the 5.0 release. == History == Telligent Systems was founded by Rob Howard in 2004, who was previously part of Microsoft's ASP.NET team. Telligent introduced its first product, Community Server, in the fall of 2004. Community Server was one of the first integrated community platforms that brought together blogs, photo galleries, wikis, forums, user profiles and more. Community Server was based on the merger of three then-widely used open source ASP.NET projects: the ASP.NET Forums, nGallery photo gallery, and .Text blog engine. The people behind those projects (Scott Watermasysk, Jason Alexander, and Rob Howard) joined together as Telligent Systems and along with several other software developers created Community Server 1.0. Between 2004 and 2009 Community Server steadily grew in scope, features, and capabilities. In 2008 Telligent Systems released a second version of Community Server that targeted as an Enterprise Social Software platform used to create and manage internal employee communities and intranets. Originally branded as Community Server Evolution this was later renamed Telligent Enterprise. Telligent also announced a new Enterprise Reporting platform at its first Community Server Developers Conference in 2008, which was later renamed Harvest. It was one of the first analytics suites for enterprise collaboration software, and provides social analytics including sentiment analysis, social fingerprints, and buzz analysis on social networking sites such as Twitter. Telligent rebranded all of its products on June 23, 2009 at the Enterprise 2.0 conference when it launched its new Evolution platform product suite. Community Server became known as Telligent Community, Community Server Evolution became known as Telligent Enterprise and the underlying platform that both run on is now referred to as Telligent Evolution. The Social Analytics suite was renamed Telligent Analytics.
Read more →
Multiple encryption

Multiple encryption is the process of encrypting an already encrypted message one or more times, either using the same or a different algorithm. It is also known as cascade encryption, cascade ciphering, cipher stacking, multiple encryption, and superencipherment. Superencryption refers to the outer-level encryption of a multiple encryption. Some cryptographers, like Matthew Green of Johns Hopkins University, say multiple encryption addresses a problem that mostly doesn't exist: Modern ciphers rarely get broken... You’re far more likely to get hit by malware or an implementation bug than you are to suffer a catastrophic attack on Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). However, from the previous quote an argument for multiple encryption can be made, namely poor implementation. Using two different cryptomodules and keying processes from two different vendors requires both vendors' wares to be compromised for security to fail completely. == Independent keys == Picking any two ciphers, if the key used is the same for both, the second cipher could possibly undo the first cipher, partly or entirely. This is true of ciphers where the decryption process is exactly the same as the encryption process (a reciprocal cipher) – the second cipher would completely undo the first. If an attacker were to recover the key through cryptanalysis of the first encryption layer, the attacker could possibly decrypt all the remaining layers, assuming the same key is used for all layers. To prevent that risk, one can use keys that are statistically independent for each layer (e.g. independent RNGs). Ideally each key should have separate and different generation, sharing, and management processes. == Independent Initialization Vectors == For en/decryption processes that require sharing an Initialization Vector (IV) / nonce these are typically, openly shared or made known to the recipient (and everyone else). Its good security policy never to provide the same data in both plaintext and ciphertext when using the same key and IV. Therefore, its recommended (although at this moment without specific evidence) to use separate IVs for each layer of encryption. == Importance of the first layer == With the exception of the one-time pad, no cipher has been theoretically proven to be unbreakable. Furthermore, some recurring properties may be found in the ciphertexts generated by the first cipher. Since those ciphertexts are the plaintexts used by the second cipher, the second cipher may be rendered vulnerable to attacks based on known plaintext properties (see references below). This is the case when the first layer is a program P that always adds the same string S of characters at the beginning (or end) of all ciphertexts (commonly known as a magic number). When found in a file, the string S allows an operating system to know that the program P has to be launched in order to decrypt the file. This string should be removed before adding a second layer. To prevent this kind of attack, one can use the method provided by Bruce Schneier: Generate a random pad R of the same size as the plaintext. Encrypt R using the first cipher and key. XOR the plaintext with the pad, then encrypt the result using the second cipher and a different (!) key. Concatenate both ciphertexts in order to build the final ciphertext. A cryptanalyst must break both ciphers to get any information. This will, however, have the drawback of making the ciphertext twice as long as the original plaintext. Note, however, that a weak first cipher may merely make a second cipher that is vulnerable to a chosen plaintext attack also vulnerable to a known plaintext attack. However, a block cipher must not be vulnerable to a chosen plaintext attack to be considered secure. Therefore, the second cipher described above is not secure under that definition, either. Consequently, both ciphers still need to be broken. The attack illustrates why strong assumptions are made about secure block ciphers and ciphers that are even partially broken should never be used. == The Rule of Two == The Rule of Two is a data security principle from the NSA's Commercial Solutions for Classified Program (CSfC). It specifies two completely independent layers of cryptography to protect data. For example, data could be protected by both hardware encryption at its lowest level and software encryption at the application layer. It could mean using two FIPS-validated software cryptomodules from different vendors to en/decrypt data. The importance of vendor and/or model diversity between the layers of components centers around removing the possibility that the manufacturers or models will share a vulnerability. This way if one components is compromised there is still an entire layer of encryption protecting the information at rest or in transit. The CSfC Program offers solutions to achieve diversity in two ways. "The first is to implement each layer using components produced by different manufacturers. The second is to use components from the same manufacturer, where that manufacturer has provided NSA with sufficient evidence that the implementations of the two components are independent of one another." The principle is practiced in the NSA's secure mobile phone called Fishbowl. The phones use two layers of encryption protocols, IPsec and Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP), to protect voice communications. The Samsung Galaxy S9 Tactical Edition is also an approved CSfC Component.
Read more →
Time-lock puzzle

A time-lock puzzle, or time-released cryptography, encrypts a message that cannot be decrypted until a specified amount of time has passed. The concept was first described by Timothy C. May, and a solution first introduced by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and David A. Wagner in 1996. Time-lock puzzle are useful in cases where confidentiality of information is determined by time, such as a diarist who does not want their views released until 50 years after their death, an auction where bids are sealed until the bidding period is closed, electronic voting, and contract signing. They can additionally be used in creating further cryptographic primitives, such as verifiable delay functions and zero knowledge proofs. Time-released cryptography can be achieved through several different mechanisms. Use mathematical problems requiring sequential calculations to solve, and cannot be solved with parallelization. Thus, adding more computers to a problem will not help solve the problem faster. Use of a trusted agent, or multiple agents who each hold a part of the message and cryptographic keys, who release the message after a specified time period has passed. Distribute public encryption keys to users, and place private cryptographic keys with a trusted agent in an offline location, to be released at a later date.
Read more →