AI Face Kissing Free Online

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

• 

  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 →
• 

  Strong cryptography

  Strong cryptography or cryptographically strong are general terms used to designate the cryptographic algorithms that, when used correctly, provide a very high (usually insurmountable) level of protection against any eavesdropper, including the government agencies. There is no precise definition of the boundary line between the strong cryptography and (breakable) weak cryptography, as this border constantly shifts due to improvements in hardware and cryptanalysis techniques. These improvements eventually place the capabilities once available only to the NSA within the reach of a skilled individual, so in practice there are only two levels of cryptographic security, "cryptography that will stop your kid sister from reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files" (Bruce Schneier). The strong cryptography algorithms have high security strength, for practical purposes usually defined as a number of bits in the key. For example, the United States government, when dealing with export control of encryption, considered as of 1999 any implementation of the symmetric encryption algorithm with the key length above 56 bits or its public key equivalent to be strong and thus potentially a subject to the export licensing. To be strong, an algorithm needs to have a sufficiently long key and be free of known mathematical weaknesses, as exploitation of these effectively reduces the key size. At the beginning of the 21st century, the typical security strength of the strong symmetrical encryption algorithms is 128 bits (slightly lower values still can be strong, but usually there is little technical gain in using smaller key sizes). Demonstrating the resistance of any cryptographic scheme to attack is a complex matter, requiring extensive testing and reviews, preferably in a public forum. Good algorithms and protocols are required (similarly, good materials are required to construct a strong building), but good system design and implementation is needed as well: "it is possible to build a cryptographically weak system using strong algorithms and protocols" (just like the use of good materials in construction does not guarantee a solid structure). Many real-life systems turn out to be weak when the strong cryptography is not used properly, for example, random nonces are reused A successful attack might not even involve algorithm at all, for example, if the key is generated from a password, guessing a weak password is easy and does not depend on the strength of the cryptographic primitives. A user can become the weakest link in the overall picture, for example, by sharing passwords and hardware tokens with the colleagues. == Background == The level of expense required for strong cryptography originally restricted its use to the government and military agencies, until the middle of the 20th century the process of encryption required a lot of human labor and errors (preventing the decryption) were very common, so only a small share of written information could have been encrypted. US government, in particular, was able to keep a monopoly on the development and use of cryptography in the US into the 1960s. In the 1970, the increased availability of powerful computers and unclassified research breakthroughs (Data Encryption Standard, the Diffie-Hellman and RSA algorithms) made strong cryptography available for civilian use. Mid-1990s saw the worldwide proliferation of knowledge and tools for strong cryptography. By the 21st century the technical limitations were gone, although the majority of the communication were still unencrypted. At the same the cost of building and running systems with strong cryptography became roughly the same as the one for the weak cryptography. The use of computers changed the process of cryptanalysis, famously with Bletchley Park's Colossus. But just as the development of digital computers and electronics helped in cryptanalysis, it also made possible much more complex ciphers. It is typically the case that use of a quality cipher is very efficient, while breaking it requires an effort many orders of magnitude larger - making cryptanalysis so inefficient and impractical as to be effectively impossible. == Cryptographically strong algorithms == This term "cryptographically strong" is often used to describe an encryption algorithm, and implies, in comparison to some other algorithm (which is thus cryptographically weak), greater resistance to attack. But it can also be used to describe hashing and unique identifier and filename creation algorithms. See for example the description of the Microsoft .NET runtime library function Path.GetRandomFileName. In this usage, the term means "difficult to guess". An encryption algorithm is intended to be unbreakable (in which case it is as strong as it can ever be), but might be breakable (in which case it is as weak as it can ever be) so there is not, in principle, a continuum of strength as the idiom would seem to imply: Algorithm A is stronger than Algorithm B which is stronger than Algorithm C, and so on. The situation is made more complex, and less subsumable into a single strength metric, by the fact that there are many types of cryptanalytic attack and that any given algorithm is likely to force the attacker to do more work to break it when using one attack than another. There is only one known unbreakable cryptographic system, the one-time pad, which is not generally possible to use because of the difficulties involved in exchanging one-time pads without them being compromised. So any encryption algorithm can be compared to the perfect algorithm, the one-time pad. The usual sense in which this term is (loosely) used, is in reference to a particular attack, brute force key search — especially in explanations for newcomers to the field. Indeed, with this attack (always assuming keys to have been randomly chosen), there is a continuum of resistance depending on the length of the key used. But even so there are two major problems: many algorithms allow use of different length keys at different times, and any algorithm can forgo use of the full key length possible. Thus, Blowfish and RC5 are block cipher algorithms whose design specifically allowed for several key lengths, and who cannot therefore be said to have any particular strength with respect to brute force key search. Furthermore, US export regulations restrict key length for exportable cryptographic products and in several cases in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., famously in the case of Lotus Notes' export approval) only partial keys were used, decreasing 'strength' against brute force attack for those (export) versions. More or less the same thing happened outside the US as well, as for example in the case of more than one of the cryptographic algorithms in the GSM cellular telephone standard. The term is commonly used to convey that some algorithm is suitable for some task in cryptography or information security, but also resists cryptanalysis and has no, or fewer, security weaknesses. Tasks are varied, and might include: generating randomness encrypting data providing a method to ensure data integrity Cryptographically strong would seem to mean that the described method has some kind of maturity, perhaps even approved for use against different kinds of systematic attacks in theory and/or practice. Indeed, that the method may resist those attacks long enough to protect the information carried (and what stands behind the information) for a useful length of time. But due to the complexity and subtlety of the field, neither is almost ever the case. Since such assurances are not actually available in real practice, sleight of hand in language which implies that they are will generally be misleading. There will always be uncertainty as advances (e.g., in cryptanalytic theory or merely affordable computer capacity) may reduce the effort needed to successfully use some attack method against an algorithm. In addition, actual use of cryptographic algorithms requires their encapsulation in a cryptosystem, and doing so often introduces vulnerabilities which are not due to faults in an algorithm. For example, essentially all algorithms require random choice of keys, and any cryptosystem which does not provide such keys will be subject to attack regardless of any attack resistant qualities of the encryption algorithm(s) used. == Legal issues == Widespread use of encryption increases the costs of surveillance, so the government policies aim to regulate the use of the strong cryptography. In the 2000s, the effect of encryption on the surveillance capabilities was limited by the ever-increasing share of communications going through the global social media platforms, that did not use the strong encryption and provided governments with the requested data. Murphy talks about a legislative balance that needs to be struck between the power of the government that are broad enough to be able to follow the qui

  Read more →
• 

  AS1 (networking)

  AS1 (Applicability Statement 1) is a specification about how to transport structured business-to-business data securely and reliably over the Internet. Security is achieved by using digital certificates and encryption. == AS1 technical overview == The AS1 protocol is based on SMTP and S/MIME. It was the first AS protocol developed and uses signing, encryption and MDN conventions. In other words: Files are sent as "attachments" in a specially coded SMIME email message Messages can be signed, but do not have to be Messages can be encrypted, but do not have to be Messages may request an MDN back if all went well, but do not have to request such a message If the original AS1 message requested an MDN... Upon the receipt of the message and its successful decryption or signature validation (as necessary) a "success" MDN will be sent back to the original sender. This MDN is typically signed but not encrypted. Upon the receipt and successful verification of the signature on the MDN, the original sender will "know" that the recipient got their message (this provides the "Non-repudiation" element of AS1) If there are any problems receiving or interpreting the original AS1 message, a "failed" MDN may be sent back. Like any other AS file transfer, AS1 file transfers typically require both sides of the exchange to trade X.509 certificates and specific "trading partner" names before any transfers can take place.

  Read more →
• 

  Social media use in African politics

  Since the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 and the Tunisian Revolution, social media, especially Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, began to gain traction as a political tool in Africa. Various political actors have used social media to pursue a wide range of political objectives. State actors can use social media to encourage political discourse, campaign, or implement censorship and surveillance. Non-state actors, such as civil society organizations and opposition movements, can use social media to address political concerns and to organize widespread uprisings, such as the 2014 Burkinabé uprising. Meanwhile, extremist organizations can use social media to further their propaganda and recruitment. However, social media has been criticized for its limited accessibility and for facilitating the spread of misinformation, causing some skepticism about its effectiveness. Due to low entry barriers and user-generated content, social media provides a platform where people from different social classes can engage and interact with one another. Under traditional media, the public had limited opportunities to voice their political opinions. Social media enables people to both create and consume content. The public has become increasingly comfortable and confident in expressing political opinions online, often away from government scrutiny. Scholars argue that social media use has democratizing effects in African countries. == State actors == === Promoting political discourse === Through social media, the government and its citizens can discuss policy ideas, policy implementation, and political actions. Regardless of geographical location and distance, people are able to voice their opinions to the government. Social media includes citizens who were previously not able to express their discontent or share their ideas to the government. As state actors keep the public informed, social media can increase civic engagement. With more civic engagement, policies can be discussed without politicization. Before the commonplace use of social media, African countries faced weak feedback mechanisms that effectively excluded the average African citizen from policy discourse. In South Africa, the government uses social media to connect with constituencies. The South African president runs an official Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr accounts to engage with the public. === Campaigning === Political parties also use social media for political campaigns during election periods. In South Africa, the ANC (African National Congress) and DA (Democratic Alliance) use social media for political purposes. These parties specifically use Facebook as a tool for campaigning and engaging with the public to improve their relationship with citizens. Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan employed social media to campaign for the presidential election in 2011, which he won. When President Goodluck Jonathan announced his bid for the presidency on social media in 2010, it reached about 217,000 people. As his campaign progressed, President Goodluck Jonathan was able to increase his followers to half a million by early 2011. === Censorship & Surveillance === While state actors can use social media to encourage their party or discourse, social media can be used to censor and surveil citizens. For example, the ANC and DA use Facebook to monitor South Africans. The government is able to track down people who have spoken against the government and translate this information into physical action to stop any possibility of a revolution. Social media platforms can be shut down to manipulate the flow of information. In Chad, citizens cannot access information through online platforms. This censorship blocked "Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Viber". In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the government shut down the internet before contested elections. In Zimbabwe, the government shut down the internet to hide civilian protests against fuel price increases. == Non-state actors == === Civil society organizations (CSOs) === Civil society organizations have also used social media networks in an effort to recruit supporters and communicate with the public. CSOs can use social media to mobilize people to support their cause, such as the Ghanaian Committee for Joint Action (CJA). In 2005 and 2006, the CJA gathered support to protest against the 50% fuel price increase. CSOs can play the role of a counterforce against state actors and state propaganda during times of crises, such as protests and military clashes. In some cases, CSOs release their own videos and photos on social media which challenges traditional forms of media. CSOs have also served to monitor elections to reduce corruption and violence during election day. For instance, the Zambian Bantu Watch started the #bantuwatch social media campaign to monitor the 2011 presidential election. Zambians used Facebook and Twitter to report polling station results to mitigate election fraud and election violence. In South Africa, CSOs created 'amandla.mobi' to campaign for public policies by creating petitions. Through 'amandla.mobi', CSOs are able to circulate petitions on social media to collect signatures. South African CSOs reported how social media helped their organizations to gain support and share ideas. However, CSOs struggle to attract media attention and often have to pay for media coverage. === Opposition forces against the government === Social media is also used by the public or opposition forces against the government. Through horizontal social media, organizing can lead to street protests and revolutions, some of which are successful. For instance, during the Egyptian revolution of 2011, "The Day of the Revolution Against Torture, Poverty, Corruption, and Unemployment" and "We Are All Khaled Said" gathered support against President Hosni Mubarak. In particular, "We Are All Khaled Said" had Egyptian citizens gather around the death of Khaled Said who was brutally tortured and killed by the Egyptian government because Said wanted to uncover government corruption. As unrest erupted into public demonstrations, President Hosni Mubarak was forced to resign. Witnessing the success of social media during the Egyptian revolution, the Tunisian Revolution, or the Jasmine Revolution, mobilized through Facebook and Twitter. Likewise, in South Africa, Malawi, and Mozambique, these countries have used social media as "new protest drums." Due to social media's low entry barrier, opposition forces against the government can facilitate political discourse that can lead to accountability. Whistleblowers and opposition forces are able to expose corruption through social media, where they face less repression while reaching a larger audience. For example, the youth of Zimbabwe and South Africa use Facebook to discuss politics without judgment. Specifically, in Zimbabwe, political youth used Facebook to avoid state surveillance. Social media is used as a supplemental tool for activism. In 2015, South African student activists started the hashtag #RhodesMustFall to push the issue of colonialism and racism at the forefront of the public. === Extremist organizations === Social media is easily accessible and created by user-based content. Therefore, marginalized groups are able to use social media to spread extremist ideas. For instance, Boko Haram created the Media Office of West Africa Province and perpetuated propaganda through Twitter and YouTube. Boko Haram's online propaganda campaign targets and persuades young dissuaded Nigerians to join their cause. It is important to note that social media has also been used against Boko Haram. In April 2014, Boko Haram kidnapped 276 schoolgirls and an international campaign fought for their return through #BringBackOurGirls. Another extremist group, Al-Shabaab, has created an online presence through Twitter and YouTube. Through these social media networks, Al-Shabaab recruits new members to their extremist group through their propaganda which emphasizes the group's successes. Albeit their efforts, Al-Shabaab has not been very successful in coordinating their members but they are successful in financing their group. Furthermore, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) use social media to target and recruit individuals to their cause. ISIL's social media usage is more diverse compared to Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab; ISIL uses "Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp, Telegram, JustPaste.it, Kik and Ask.fm." Since ISIL's Twitter accounts kept getting shut down, ISIL uses Telegram and WhatsApp chat rooms to privately conduct meetings. Due to the spread of extremist ideology, Zhuravskaya et al. acknowledge social media's potential to be misused. == Challenges == Although social media can be used as a political tool, it faces challenges in Africa. Due to low literacy rates in Africa, social media networks exclude many of the population members. In addition, lack of access to electricity and the internet can fur

  Read more →
• 

  GPT-5

  GPT-5 is a multimodal large language model developed by OpenAI and the fifth in its series of generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) foundation models. Preceded in the series by GPT-4, it was launched on August 7, 2025. It is publicly accessible to users of the chatbot products ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot as well as to developers through the OpenAI API. == Background == On April 14, 2023, Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, spoke at an event at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and said that the company was not training GPT-5 at that time. He stated that OpenAI was "prioritizing GPT-4 development" and that "we are not and won't for some time" release GPT-5. On July 18, OpenAI filed for a "GPT-5" trademark in the United States. On November 13, Altman confirmed to the Financial Times that the company was working to develop GPT-5. According to The Information, "[f]or much of the second half of 2024, OpenAI was developing a model known internally as Orion and intended to become GPT-5", "[b]ut the Orion effort failed to produce a better model, and the company instead released it as GPT-4.5 in February [2025]." By late July 2025, OpenAI was widely anticipated as planning to release GPT-5 in early August. On July 30, The Verge reported that "Microsoft is getting ready for GPT-5" as "sources familiar with Microsoft's AI plans" told an editor that the company was testing a new mode for its Copilot chatbot that would offer a model that "thinks deeply or quickly based on the task". On August 5, in the leadup to the release of GPT-5, OpenAI released GPT-OSS, a set of two open-weight models that have reasoning capabilities. GPT-5 was then unveiled during a livestream event on August 7. == Capabilities == At the time of its release, GPT-5 had state-of-the-art performance on benchmarks that test mathematics, programming, finance, and multimodal understanding. According to OpenAI, improvements over its predecessor models include faster response times, better coding and writing skills, more accurate answers to health questions, and lower levels of hallucination. Also, compared to previous models, GPT-5 aims to give safe, high-level responses to potentially harmful queries rather than outright declining them, an approach that OpenAI refers to as "safe completions", aiming to result "in GPT-5 being able to refuse more unsafe questions, while offering fewer rejections to users seeking harmless information." In addition, GPT-5 was trained to give more critical, "less effusively agreeable" answers compared to its predecessor models. Days before the launch of GPT-5, two early testers of the model stated that they were "impressed" by its ability to code and to solve mathematical and scientific problems. They suggested that the model shows great improvement from GPT-4, but not as large of a gain as from GPT-3 to GPT-4. A day prior to the release of GPT-5, during a press briefing, Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, called GPT-5 "a significant step along the path to AGI", referring to artificial general intelligence, the hypothetical level of intelligence that OpenAI defines as the ability to perform any economically valuable task that a human can. According to Altman, GPT-5 is "significantly better" than its predecessors, offering "PhD-level" abilities across a wide range of tasks. The exact energy consumption of GPT-5 use has not been disclosed by OpenAI. Researchers at the University of Rhode Island estimated that a medium-length response consumes slightly over 18 watt-hours, equivalent to using an incandescent bulb for 18 minutes. === Architecture === GPT-5 is a system that contains a fast, high-throughput model, a deeper reasoning model, and a real-time router that decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit user intent. Altman had previously criticized the manual model picker for being overly complex, suggesting a need for unification. GPT-5 also includes agentic functionality through which it can set up its own desktop and can use its browser to search autonomously for sources that relate to its task. The GPT-5 system card defines two fast, high-throughput models – gpt-5-main and gpt-5-main-mini – and two thinking models – gpt-5-thinking and gpt-5-thinking-mini. In the OpenAI API, developers can access the thinking model, its mini version, and gpt-5-thinking-nano, an even smaller and faster nano version of the thinking model. The version of GPT-5 that is accessible via the API has adjustable reasoning effort (low, medium, high, or minimal) and verbosity (low, medium, or high). Additionally, ChatGPT provides access to gpt-5-thinking with a setting that makes use of parallel test-time compute, referred to as gpt-5-thinking-pro. == Limitations == === Safety === Neuraltrust, a security research company, claimed to have successfully compromised GPT-5 within its first day of testing the model. According to its report, it enabled GPT-5 to generate detailed instructions for manufacturing explosive devices. SPLX, another company, conducted similar tests and came to similar conclusions about GPT-5's security. Their assessments suggest that GPT-5 has significant security gaps, potentially rendering it as being unsafe for use in a corporate environment. == Training == According to AIMultiple, GPT-5 is natively multimodal, meaning that it was trained from scratch on multiple modalities (like text and images) at once without relying on already-trained language or vision models. Its training process involved three stages: unsupervised pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning from human feedback. Pretraining used a large-scale multilingual dataset of books, articles, web pages, academic papers, and licensed sources. GPT-5's visual and text capabilities were described as having been developed alongside each other throughout training, unlike with GPT-4. == Use == GPT-5 is used in ChatGPT. Although GPT-5 is free for all ChatGPT users, Plus users get higher use limits while Pro users get unlimited access to GPT-5 as well as limited access to GPT-5 Pro. Standard limits for lower-tier users on responses per hour still apply. Additionally, with the introduction of GPT-5, ChatGPT's "Advanced Voice Mode" was replaced by "ChatGPT Voice", which is supposed to enable more natural-sounding conversations. OpenAI stated that "Standard Voice Mode retires on September 9, 2025, unifying all users on ChatGPT Voice". On November 24, 2025, the feature of shopping research was added to ChatGPT, claimed to be a mini model post-trained on gpt-5-thinking-mini. GPT-5 is also available in Microsoft Copilot, and Microsoft stated that it will incorporate GPT-5 into a wide variety of its products. According to 9to5Mac, Apple Inc. is planning to integrate the model into the Apple Intelligence feature in its iOS 26, iPadOS 26, and macOS Tahoe operating systems. It is also accessible via the OpenAI API. A number of American companies were reported as having received access to GPT-5 ahead of its launch. OpenAI stated that the private health insurance company Oscar Health was checking applications from its policyholders with the model. In addition, Uber was using GPT-5 for its customer support system; GitLab, Windsurf, and Cursor were using the model for software development; and the Spanish bank BBVA was using it for financial analysis. Other companies that OpenAI listed as having used GPT-5 pre-release include Amgen, Lowe's, and Notion. == Reception == === Critical reviews === Grace Huckins in MIT Technology Review found that, "[w]hereas o1 was a major technological advancement, GPT-5 is, above all else, a refined product." In response to claims that Sam Altman, the chief executive officer of OpenAI, had made about the model, she stated that "GPT-5 will furnish a more pleasant and seamless user experience. That's not nothing, but it falls far short of the transformative AI future that Altman has spent much of the past year hyping." In response to Altman's claim that GPT-5 is "a significant step along the path" to artificial general intelligence, she noted: "[M]aybe he's right—but if so, it's a very small step." In The Information, Stephanie Palazzolo praised GPT-5's coding capabilities. According to Matteo Wong in The Atlantic, GPT-5 "is intuitive, fast, and efficient; adapts to human preferences and intentions; and is easy to personalize." He stated: "At this stage of the AI boom, when every major chatbot is legitimately helpful in numerous ways, benchmarks, science, and rigor feel almost insignificant. What matters is how the chatbot feels [...]". John Herrman from the New York magazine wrote: "Casual users who encounter GPT-5 through ChatGPT aren't likely to feel like they're using a completely different product [...] while people who use it for software development or in a corporate context are more likely to notice a major change." Mashable's Christian de Looper found that "GPT-5

  Read more →
• 

  Data deduplication

  In computing, data deduplication is a technique for eliminating duplicate copies of repeating data. Successful implementation of the technique can improve storage utilization, which may in turn lower capital expenditure by reducing the overall amount of storage media required to meet storage capacity needs. It can also be applied to network data transfers to reduce the number of bytes that must be sent. The deduplication process requires comparison of data 'chunks' (also known as 'byte patterns') which are unique, contiguous blocks of data. These chunks are identified and stored during a process of analysis, and compared to other chunks within existing data. Whenever a match occurs, the redundant chunk is replaced with a small reference that points to the stored chunk. Given that the same byte pattern may occur dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of times (the match frequency is dependent on the chunk size), the amount of data that must be stored or transferred can be greatly reduced. A related technique is single-instance (data) storage, which replaces multiple copies of content at the whole-file level with a single shared copy. While possible to combine this with other forms of data compression and deduplication, it is distinct from newer approaches to data deduplication (which can operate at the segment or sub-block level). Deduplication is different from data compression algorithms, such as LZ77 and LZ78. Whereas compression algorithms identify redundant data inside individual files and encodes this redundant data more efficiently, the intent of deduplication is to inspect large volumes of data and identify large sections – such as entire files or large sections of files – that are identical, and replace them with a shared copy. == Functioning principle == For example, a typical email system might contain 100 instances of the same 1 MB (megabyte) file attachment. Each time the email platform is backed up, all 100 instances of the attachment are saved, requiring 100 MB storage space. With data deduplication, only one instance of the attachment is actually stored; the subsequent instances are referenced back to the saved copy for deduplication ratio of roughly 100 to 1. Deduplication is often paired with data compression for additional storage saving: Deduplication is first used to eliminate large chunks of repetitive data, and compression is then used to efficiently encode each of the stored chunks. In computer code, deduplication is done by, for example, storing information in variables so that they don't have to be written out individually but can be changed all at once at a central referenced location. Examples are CSS classes and named references in MediaWiki. == Benefits == Storage-based data deduplication reduces the amount of storage needed for a given set of files. It is most effective in applications where many copies of very similar or even identical data are stored on a single disk. In the case of data backups, which routinely are performed to protect against data loss, most data in a given backup remain unchanged from the previous backup. Common backup systems try to exploit this by omitting (or hard linking) files that haven't changed or storing differences between files. Neither approach captures all redundancies, however. Hard-linking does not help with large files that have only changed in small ways, such as an email database; differences only find redundancies in adjacent versions of a single file (consider a section that was deleted and later added in again, or a logo image included in many documents). In-line network data deduplication is used to reduce the number of bytes that must be transferred between endpoints, which can reduce the amount of bandwidth required. See WAN optimization for more information. Virtual servers and virtual desktops benefit from deduplication because it allows nominally separate system files for each virtual machine to be coalesced into a single storage space. At the same time, if a given virtual machine customizes a file, deduplication will not change the files on the other virtual machines—something that alternatives like hard links or shared disks do not offer. Backing up or making duplicate copies of virtual environments is similarly improved. == Classification == === Post-process versus in-line deduplication === Deduplication may occur "in-line", as data is flowing, or "post-process" after it has been written. With post-process deduplication, new data is first stored on the storage device and then a process at a later time will analyze the data looking for duplication. The benefit is that there is no need to wait for the hash calculations and lookup to be completed before storing the data, thereby ensuring that store performance is not degraded. Implementations offering policy-based operation can give users the ability to defer optimization on "active" files, or to process files based on type and location. One potential drawback is that duplicate data may be unnecessarily stored for a short time, which can be problematic if the system is nearing full capacity. Alternatively, deduplication hash calculations can be done in-line: synchronized as data enters the target device. If the storage system identifies a block which it has already stored, only a reference to the existing block is stored, rather than the whole new block. The advantage of in-line deduplication over post-process deduplication is that it requires less storage and network traffic, since duplicate data is never stored or transferred. On the negative side, hash calculations may be computationally expensive, thereby reducing the storage throughput. However, certain vendors with in-line deduplication have demonstrated equipment which performs in-line deduplication at high rates. Post-process and in-line deduplication methods are often heavily debated. === Data formats === The SNIA Dictionary identifies two methods: Content-agnostic data deduplication – a data deduplication method that does not require awareness of specific application data formats. Content-aware data deduplication – a data deduplication method that leverages knowledge of specific application data formats. === Source versus target deduplication === Another way to classify data deduplication methods is according to where they occur. Deduplication occurring close to where data is created, is referred to as "source deduplication". When it occurs near where the data is stored, it is called "target deduplication". Source deduplication ensures that data on the data source is deduplicated. This generally takes place directly within a file system. The file system will periodically scan new files creating hashes and compare them to hashes of existing files. When files with same hashes are found then the file copy is removed and the new file points to the old file. Unlike hard links however, duplicated files are considered to be separate entities and if one of the duplicated files is later modified, then using a system called copy-on-write a copy of that changed file or block is created. The deduplication process is transparent to the users and backup applications. Backing up a deduplicated file system will often cause duplication to occur resulting in the backups being bigger than the source data. Source deduplication can be declared explicitly for copying operations, as no calculation is needed to know that the copied data is in need of deduplication. This leads to a new form of link on file systems, called a reference-counted link, or reflink, in some systems (e.g. Linux), or a cloned file on macOS, where one or more inodes (file information entries) are made to share some or all of their data. It is named analogously to hard links, which work at the inode level, and symbolic links, which work at the filename level.The individual entries have a copy-on-write behavior that is non-aliasing, i.e. changing one copy afterwards will not affect other copies. Microsoft's ReFS also supports this operation. Target deduplication is the process of removing duplicates when the data was not generated at that location. Example of this would be a server connected to a SAN/NAS, The SAN/NAS would be a target for the server (target deduplication). The server is not aware of any deduplication, the server is also the point of data generation. A second example would be backup. Generally this will be a backup store such as a data repository or a virtual tape library. === Deduplication methods === One of the most common forms of data deduplication implementations works by comparing chunks of data to detect duplicates. For that to happen, each chunk of data is assigned an identification, calculated by the software, typically using cryptographic hash functions. In many implementations, the assumption is made that if the identification is identical, the data is identical, even though this cannot be true in all cases due to the pigeonhole principle; other implementations do not as

  Read more →
• 

  Server-Gated Cryptography

  Server-Gated Cryptography (SGC), also known as International Step-Up by Netscape, is a defunct mechanism that was used to step up from 40-bit or 56-bit to 128-bit cipher suites with SSL. It was created in response to United States federal legislation on the export of strong cryptography in the 1990s. The legislation had limited encryption to weak algorithms and shorter key lengths in software exported outside of the United States of America. When the legislation added an exception for financial transactions, SGC was created as an extension to SSL with the certificates being restricted to financial organisations. In 1999, this list was expanded to include online merchants, healthcare organizations, and insurance companies. This legislation changed in January 2000, resulting in vendors no longer shipping export-grade browsers and SGC certificates becoming available without restriction. Internet Explorer supported SGC starting with patched versions of Internet Explorer 3. SGC became obsolete when Internet Explorer 5.01 SP1 and Internet Explorer 5.5 started supporting strong encryption without the need for a separate high encryption pack (except on Windows 2000, which needs its own high encryption pack that was included in Service Pack 2 and later). "Export-grade" browsers are unusable on the modern Web due to many servers disabling export cipher suites. Additionally, these browsers are incapable of using SHA-2 family signature hash algorithms like SHA-256. Certification authorities are trying to phase out the new issuance of certificates with the older SHA-1 signature hash algorithm. The continuing use of SGC facilitates the use of obsolete, insecure Web browsers with HTTPS. However, while certificates that use the SHA-1 signature hash algorithm remain available, some certificate authorities continue to issue SGC certificates (often charging a premium for them) although they are obsolete. The reason certificate authorities can charge a premium for SGC certificates is that browsers only allowed a limited number of roots to support SGC. When an SSL handshake takes place, the software (e.g. a web browser) would list the ciphers that it supports. Although the weaker exported browsers would only include weaker ciphers in its initial SSL handshake, the browser also contained stronger cryptography algorithms. There are two protocols involved to activate them. Netscape Communicator 4 used International Step-Up, which used the now obsolete insecure renegotiation to change to a stronger cipher suite. Microsoft used SGC, which sends a new Client Hello message listing the stronger cipher suites on the same connection after the certificate is determined to be SGC capable, and also supported Netscape Step-Up for compatibility (though this support in the NT 4.0 SP6 and IE 5.01 version had a bug where changing MAC algorithms during Step-Up did not work properly).

  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 →
• 

  Log shipping

  Log shipping is the process of automating the backup of transaction log files on a primary (production) database server, and then restoring them onto a standby server. This technique is supported by Microsoft SQL Server, 4D Server, MySQL, and PostgreSQL. Similar to replication, the primary purpose of log shipping is to increase database availability by maintaining a backup server that can replace a production server quickly. Other databases such as Adaptive Server Enterprise and Oracle Database support the technique but require the Database Administrator to write code or scripts to perform the work. Although the actual failover mechanism in log shipping is manual, this implementation is often chosen due to its low cost in human and server resources, and ease of implementation. In comparison, SQL server clusters enable automatic failover, but at the expense of much higher storage costs. Compared to database replication, log shipping does not provide as much in terms of reporting capabilities, but backs up system tables along with data tables, and locks the standby server from users' modifications. A replicated server can be modified (e.g. views) and is therefore unsuitable for failover purposes.

  Read more →
• 

  Rassd News Network

  Rassd News Network, also known by its initials of RNN (Arabic:شبكة رصد الاخبارية), is an alternative media network based in Cairo, Egypt. RNN was launched as a Facebook-based news source launched on January 25, 2011. It quickly advanced to become a primary contributor of Egyptian revolution-related news that year. Applying the motto "From the people to the people," the citizen journalists who created RNN have since added a Twitter feed and launched an independent website dedicated to short news stories favored by an online audience. RNN is an organized citizen news network with four working committees; one for editing the news, another to support the correspondents covering Egypt, a third for managing the multimedia feeds and a fourth for staff functions such as development, training and public relations. RNN's Arabic name, Rassd, is an acronym that stands for Rakeb (observe), Sawwer (record) and Dawwen (blog). RNN created a Ustream channel on January 27, 2011, and a YouTube account a month later. The success of RNN and its new social media model is evidenced in its recent local network expansion into Libya, Morocco, Syria, Jerusalem and Turkey. Even so, one media scholar in the US (commenting in 2011) called the accuracy of RNN's reporting "fairly mediocre". RNN has endured closures of their Facebook profile and YouTube account as part of the attacks from private media, attempting to thwart their work and influence their content. == Use of RNN's news by international media == RNN has been a global source of Egyptian revolution-related news since its launch. During the early days of the citizen uprisings across the Middle East, major networks such as BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya used some of Rassd's news and photos, and followed the network on Twitter. Three days after the online portal went live it was streaming video to MSNBC through its Facebook page. Then on February 5, 2011, Louisville's NBC-affiliate cited RNN, Cairo when it reported that President Hosni Mubarak had stepped down as head of Egypt's ruling party.

  Read more →
• 

  Cryptovirology

  Cryptovirology refers to the study of cryptography use in malware, such as ransomware and asymmetric backdoors. Traditionally, cryptography and its applications are defensive in nature, and provide privacy, authentication, and security to users. Cryptovirology employs a twist on cryptography, showing that it can also be used offensively. It can be used to mount extortion based attacks that cause loss of access to information, loss of confidentiality, and information leakage, tasks which cryptography typically prevents. The field was born with the observation that public-key cryptography can be used to break the symmetry between what an antivirus analyst sees regarding malware and what the attacker sees. The antivirus analyst sees a public key contained in the malware, whereas the attacker sees the public key contained in the malware as well as the corresponding private key (outside the malware) since the attacker created the key pair for the attack. The public key allows the malware to perform trapdoor one-way operations on the victim's computer that only the attacker can undo. == Overview == The field encompasses covert malware attacks in which the attacker securely steals private information such as symmetric keys, private keys, PRNG state, and the victim's data. Examples of such covert attacks are asymmetric backdoors. An asymmetric backdoor is a backdoor (e.g., in a cryptosystem) that can be used only by the attacker, even after it is found. This contrasts with the traditional backdoor that is symmetric, i.e., anyone that finds it can use it. Kleptography, a subfield of cryptovirology, is the study of asymmetric backdoors in key generation algorithms, digital signature algorithms, key exchanges, pseudorandom number generators, encryption algorithms, and other cryptographic algorithms. The NIST Dual EC DRBG random bit generator has an asymmetric backdoor in it. The EC-DRBG algorithm utilizes the discrete-log kleptogram from kleptography, which by definition makes the EC-DRBG a cryptotrojan. Like ransomware, the EC-DRBG cryptotrojan contains and uses the attacker's public key to attack the host system. The cryptographer Ari Juels indicated that NSA effectively orchestrated a kleptographic attack on users of the Dual EC DRBG pseudorandom number generation algorithm and that, although security professionals and developers have been testing and implementing kleptographic attacks since 1996, "you would be hard-pressed to find one in actual use until now." Due to public outcry about this cryptovirology attack, NIST rescinded the EC-DRBG algorithm from the NIST SP 800-90 standard. Covert information leakage attacks carried out by cryptoviruses, cryptotrojans, and cryptoworms that, by definition, contain and use the public key of the attacker is a major theme in cryptovirology. In "deniable password snatching," a cryptovirus installs a cryptotrojan that asymmetrically encrypts host data and covertly broadcasts it. This makes it available to everyone, noticeable by no one (except the attacker), and only decipherable by the attacker. An attacker caught installing the cryptotrojan claims to be a virus victim. An attacker observed receiving the covert asymmetric broadcast is one of the thousands, if not millions of receivers, and exhibits no identifying information whatsoever. The cryptovirology attack achieves "end-to-end deniability." It is a covert asymmetric broadcast of the victim's data. Cryptovirology also encompasses the use of private information retrieval (PIR) to allow cryptoviruses to search for and steal host data without revealing the data searched for even when the cryptotrojan is under constant surveillance. By definition, such a cryptovirus carries within its own coding sequence the query of the attacker and the necessary PIR logic to apply the query to host systems. == History == The first cryptovirology attack and discussion of the concept was by Adam L. Young and Moti Yung, at the time called "cryptoviral extortion" and it was presented at the 1996 IEEE Security & Privacy conference. In this attack, a cryptovirus, cryptoworm, or cryptotrojan contains the public key of the attacker and hybrid encrypts the victim's files. The malware prompts the user to send the asymmetric ciphertext to the attacker who will decipher it and return the symmetric decryption key it contains for a fee. The victim needs the symmetric key to decrypt the encrypted files if there is no way to recover the original files (e.g., from backups). The 1996 IEEE paper predicted that cryptoviral extortion attackers would one day demand e-money, long before Bitcoin even existed. Many years later, the media relabeled cryptoviral extortion as ransomware. In 2016, cryptovirology attacks on healthcare providers reached epidemic levels, prompting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to issue a Fact Sheet on Ransomware and HIPAA. The fact sheet states that when electronic protected health information is encrypted by ransomware, a breach has occurred, and the attack therefore constitutes a disclosure that is not permitted under HIPAA, the rationale being that an adversary has taken control of the information. Sensitive data might never leave the victim organization, but the break-in may have allowed data to be sent out undetected. California enacted a law that defines the introduction of ransomware into a computer system with the intent of extortion as being against the law. == Examples == === Tremor virus === While viruses in the wild have used cryptography in the past, the only purpose of such usage of cryptography was to avoid detection by antivirus software. For example, the tremor virus used polymorphism as a defensive technique in an attempt to avoid detection by anti-virus software. Though cryptography does assist in such cases to enhance the longevity of a virus, the capabilities of cryptography are not used in the payload. The One-half virus was amongst the first viruses known to have encrypted affected files. === Tro_Ransom.A virus === An example of a virus that informs the owner of the infected machine to pay a ransom is the virus nicknamed Tro_Ransom.A. This virus asks the owner of the infected machine to send $10.99 to a given account through Western Union. Virus.Win32.Gpcode.ag is a classic cryptovirus. This virus partially uses a version of 660-bit RSA and encrypts files with many different extensions. It instructs the owner of the machine to email a given mail ID if the owner desires the decryptor. If contacted by email, the user will be asked to pay a certain amount as ransom in return for the decryptor. === CAPI === It has been demonstrated that using just 8 different calls to Microsoft's Cryptographic API (CAPI), a cryptovirus can satisfy all its encryption needs. == Other uses of cryptography-enabled malware == Apart from cryptoviral extortion, there are other potential uses of cryptoviruses, such as deniable password snatching, cryptocounters, private information retrieval, and in secure communication between different instances of a distributed cryptovirus.

  Read more →
• 

  Backdoor (computing)

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

  Read more →
• 

  Sample (graphics)

  In computer graphics, a sample is an intersection of a channel and a pixel. The diagram below depicts a 24-bit pixel, consisting of 3 samples for Red, Green, and Blue. In this particular diagram, the Red sample occupies 9 bits, the Green sample occupies 7 bits and the Blue sample occupies 8 bits, totaling 24 bits per pixel. Note that the samples do not have to be equal size and not all samples are mandatory in a pixel. Also, a pixel can consist of more than 3 samples (e.g. 4 samples of the RGBA color space). A sample is related to a subpixel on a physical display.

  Read more →
• 

  Strong cryptography

  Strong cryptography or cryptographically strong are general terms used to designate the cryptographic algorithms that, when used correctly, provide a very high (usually insurmountable) level of protection against any eavesdropper, including the government agencies. There is no precise definition of the boundary line between the strong cryptography and (breakable) weak cryptography, as this border constantly shifts due to improvements in hardware and cryptanalysis techniques. These improvements eventually place the capabilities once available only to the NSA within the reach of a skilled individual, so in practice there are only two levels of cryptographic security, "cryptography that will stop your kid sister from reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files" (Bruce Schneier). The strong cryptography algorithms have high security strength, for practical purposes usually defined as a number of bits in the key. For example, the United States government, when dealing with export control of encryption, considered as of 1999 any implementation of the symmetric encryption algorithm with the key length above 56 bits or its public key equivalent to be strong and thus potentially a subject to the export licensing. To be strong, an algorithm needs to have a sufficiently long key and be free of known mathematical weaknesses, as exploitation of these effectively reduces the key size. At the beginning of the 21st century, the typical security strength of the strong symmetrical encryption algorithms is 128 bits (slightly lower values still can be strong, but usually there is little technical gain in using smaller key sizes). Demonstrating the resistance of any cryptographic scheme to attack is a complex matter, requiring extensive testing and reviews, preferably in a public forum. Good algorithms and protocols are required (similarly, good materials are required to construct a strong building), but good system design and implementation is needed as well: "it is possible to build a cryptographically weak system using strong algorithms and protocols" (just like the use of good materials in construction does not guarantee a solid structure). Many real-life systems turn out to be weak when the strong cryptography is not used properly, for example, random nonces are reused A successful attack might not even involve algorithm at all, for example, if the key is generated from a password, guessing a weak password is easy and does not depend on the strength of the cryptographic primitives. A user can become the weakest link in the overall picture, for example, by sharing passwords and hardware tokens with the colleagues. == Background == The level of expense required for strong cryptography originally restricted its use to the government and military agencies, until the middle of the 20th century the process of encryption required a lot of human labor and errors (preventing the decryption) were very common, so only a small share of written information could have been encrypted. US government, in particular, was able to keep a monopoly on the development and use of cryptography in the US into the 1960s. In the 1970, the increased availability of powerful computers and unclassified research breakthroughs (Data Encryption Standard, the Diffie-Hellman and RSA algorithms) made strong cryptography available for civilian use. Mid-1990s saw the worldwide proliferation of knowledge and tools for strong cryptography. By the 21st century the technical limitations were gone, although the majority of the communication were still unencrypted. At the same the cost of building and running systems with strong cryptography became roughly the same as the one for the weak cryptography. The use of computers changed the process of cryptanalysis, famously with Bletchley Park's Colossus. But just as the development of digital computers and electronics helped in cryptanalysis, it also made possible much more complex ciphers. It is typically the case that use of a quality cipher is very efficient, while breaking it requires an effort many orders of magnitude larger - making cryptanalysis so inefficient and impractical as to be effectively impossible. == Cryptographically strong algorithms == This term "cryptographically strong" is often used to describe an encryption algorithm, and implies, in comparison to some other algorithm (which is thus cryptographically weak), greater resistance to attack. But it can also be used to describe hashing and unique identifier and filename creation algorithms. See for example the description of the Microsoft .NET runtime library function Path.GetRandomFileName. In this usage, the term means "difficult to guess". An encryption algorithm is intended to be unbreakable (in which case it is as strong as it can ever be), but might be breakable (in which case it is as weak as it can ever be) so there is not, in principle, a continuum of strength as the idiom would seem to imply: Algorithm A is stronger than Algorithm B which is stronger than Algorithm C, and so on. The situation is made more complex, and less subsumable into a single strength metric, by the fact that there are many types of cryptanalytic attack and that any given algorithm is likely to force the attacker to do more work to break it when using one attack than another. There is only one known unbreakable cryptographic system, the one-time pad, which is not generally possible to use because of the difficulties involved in exchanging one-time pads without them being compromised. So any encryption algorithm can be compared to the perfect algorithm, the one-time pad. The usual sense in which this term is (loosely) used, is in reference to a particular attack, brute force key search — especially in explanations for newcomers to the field. Indeed, with this attack (always assuming keys to have been randomly chosen), there is a continuum of resistance depending on the length of the key used. But even so there are two major problems: many algorithms allow use of different length keys at different times, and any algorithm can forgo use of the full key length possible. Thus, Blowfish and RC5 are block cipher algorithms whose design specifically allowed for several key lengths, and who cannot therefore be said to have any particular strength with respect to brute force key search. Furthermore, US export regulations restrict key length for exportable cryptographic products and in several cases in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., famously in the case of Lotus Notes' export approval) only partial keys were used, decreasing 'strength' against brute force attack for those (export) versions. More or less the same thing happened outside the US as well, as for example in the case of more than one of the cryptographic algorithms in the GSM cellular telephone standard. The term is commonly used to convey that some algorithm is suitable for some task in cryptography or information security, but also resists cryptanalysis and has no, or fewer, security weaknesses. Tasks are varied, and might include: generating randomness encrypting data providing a method to ensure data integrity Cryptographically strong would seem to mean that the described method has some kind of maturity, perhaps even approved for use against different kinds of systematic attacks in theory and/or practice. Indeed, that the method may resist those attacks long enough to protect the information carried (and what stands behind the information) for a useful length of time. But due to the complexity and subtlety of the field, neither is almost ever the case. Since such assurances are not actually available in real practice, sleight of hand in language which implies that they are will generally be misleading. There will always be uncertainty as advances (e.g., in cryptanalytic theory or merely affordable computer capacity) may reduce the effort needed to successfully use some attack method against an algorithm. In addition, actual use of cryptographic algorithms requires their encapsulation in a cryptosystem, and doing so often introduces vulnerabilities which are not due to faults in an algorithm. For example, essentially all algorithms require random choice of keys, and any cryptosystem which does not provide such keys will be subject to attack regardless of any attack resistant qualities of the encryption algorithm(s) used. == Legal issues == Widespread use of encryption increases the costs of surveillance, so the government policies aim to regulate the use of the strong cryptography. In the 2000s, the effect of encryption on the surveillance capabilities was limited by the ever-increasing share of communications going through the global social media platforms, that did not use the strong encryption and provided governments with the requested data. Murphy talks about a legislative balance that needs to be struck between the power of the government that are broad enough to be able to follow the qui

  Read more →
• 

  Conjugate coding

  Conjugate coding is a cryptographic tool, introduced by Stephen Wiesner in the late 1960s. It is part of the two applications Wiesner described for quantum coding, along with a method for creating fraud-proof banking notes. The application that the concept was based on was a method of transmitting multiple messages in such a way that reading one destroys the others. This is called quantum multiplexing and it uses photons polarized in conjugate bases as "qubits" to pass information. Conjugate coding also is a simple extension of a random number generator. At the behest of Charles Bennett, Wiesner published the manuscript explaining the basic idea of conjugate coding with a number of examples but it was not embraced because it was significantly ahead of its time. Because its publication has been rejected, it was developed to the world of public-key cryptography in the 1980s as oblivious transfer, first by Michael Rabin and then by Shimon Even. It is used in the field of quantum computing. The initial concept of quantum cryptography developed by Bennett and Gilles Brassard was also based on this concept.

  Read more →