AI Face Upscale

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

Hybrid intelligent system

Hybrid intelligent system denotes a software system which employs, in parallel, a combination of methods and techniques from artificial intelligence subfields, such as: Neuro-symbolic systems Neuro-fuzzy systems Hybrid connectionist-symbolic models Fuzzy expert systems Connectionist expert systems Evolutionary neural networks Genetic fuzzy systems Rough fuzzy hybridization Reinforcement learning with fuzzy, neural, or evolutionary methods as well as symbolic reasoning methods. From the cognitive science perspective, every natural intelligent system is hybrid because it performs mental operations on both the symbolic and subsymbolic levels. For the past few years, there has been an increasing discussion of the importance of A.I. Systems Integration. Based on notions that there have already been created simple and specific AI systems (such as systems for computer vision, speech synthesis, etc., or software that employs some of the models mentioned above) and now is the time for integration to create broad AI systems. Proponents of this approach are researchers such as Marvin Minsky, Ron Sun, Aaron Sloman, Angelo Dalli and Michael A. Arbib. An example hybrid is a hierarchical control system in which the lowest, reactive layers are sub-symbolic. The higher layers, having relaxed time constraints, are capable of reasoning from an abstract world model and performing planning (even by hybrid wisdom). Intelligent systems usually rely on hybrid reasoning processes, which include induction, deduction, abduction and reasoning by analogy.
Read more →
Content-oriented workflow models

In data management, a content-oriented workflow model seeks to articulate workflow progression by the presence of content units (like data-records/objects/documents). Most content-oriented workflow approaches provide a life-cycle model for content units, such that workflow progression can be qualified by conditions on the state of the units. Most approaches are research and work in progress and the content models and life-cycle models are more or less formalized. The term content-oriented workflows is an umbrella term for several scientific workflow approaches, namely "data-driven", "resource-driven", "artifact-centric", "object-aware", and "document-oriented". Thus, the meaning of "content" ranges from simple data attributes to self-contained documents; the term "content-oriented workflows" appeared at first in as an umbrella term. Such a general term, independent from a specific approach, is necessary to contrast the content-oriented modelling principle with traditional activity-oriented workflow models (like Petri nets or BPMN) where a workflow is driven by a control flow and where the content production perspective is neglected or even missing. The term "content" was chosen to subsume the different levels in granularity of the content units in the respective workflow models; it was also chosen to make associations with content management. Both terms "artifact-centric" and "data-driven" would also be good candidates for an umbrella term, but each is closely related to a specific approach of a single working group. The "artifact-centric" group itself (i.e. IBM Research) has generalized the characteristics of their approach and has used "information-centric" as an umbrella term in. Yet, the term information is too unspecific in the context of computer science, thus, "content-orientated workflows" is considered as good compromise. == Workflow Model Approaches == === Data-driven === The data-driven process structures provides a sophisticated workflow model being specialized on hierarchical write-and-review-processes. The approach provides interleaved synchronization of sub-processes and extends activity diagrams. Unfortunately, the COREPRO prototype implementation is not publicly available. Research on the project had been ceased. The general idea has been continued by Reichert in form of the #Object-aware approach. Synonyms data-driven process structures / data-driven modeling and coordination Protagonists Dr. Dominic Müller (University of Twente), Joachim Herbst (DaimlerChrysler Research), and Manfred Reichert (at this time Assoc. Prof. at Univ. of Twente, currently Prof. at Ulm Univ.) Organization(s) University of Twente, DaimlerChrysler Period 2005 - 2007 Selected publications Implementation COREPRO === Resource-driven === The resource-driven workflow system is an early approach that considered workflows from a content-oriented perspective and emphasizes on the missing support for plain document-driven processes by traditional activity-oriented workflow engines. The resource-driven approach demonstrated the application of database triggers for handling workflow events. Still the system implementation is centralized and the workflow schema is statically defined. The project appeared in 2005 but many aspects are considered future work by the authors. Research did not continue on the project. Wang completed his PhD thesis in 2009, yet, his thesis does not mention the resource-driven approach to workflow modelling but is about discrete event simulation. Synonyms Resource-based Workflows / Document-Driven Workflow Systems Protagonists Jianrui Wang and Prof. Akhil Kumar Organization Pennsylvania State University Period 2005 - today Selected publications Implementation N/A === Artifact-centric === The artifact-centric approach provides a framework for content-oriented workflows. In this model, the enterprise application landscape includes distributed business services, while the workflow engine is centralized. Process enactment is integrated with database management system infrastructure, and the project is funded by IBM. Synonyms artifact-centric business process models / artifact-based business process (ACP) / artifact-centric workflows Protagonists Richard Hull and Dr. Kamal Bhattacharya as well as Cagdas E. Gerede and Jianwen Su Organization IBM (T.J. Watson Research Center, NY) Period 2007 - today Selected publications Implementation ArtiFact === Object-aware === The object-aware approach manages a set of object types and generates forms for creating object instances. The form completion flow is controlled by transitions between object configurations each describing a progressing set of mandatory attributes. Each object configuration is named by an object state. The data production flow is user-shifting and it is discrete by defining a sequence of object states. The discussion is currently limited to a centralized system, without any workflows across different organizations. However, the approach is of great relevance to many domains like concurrent engineering. Finally, the object-aware approach and its PHILharmonicFlows system are going to provide general-purpose workflow systems for generic enactment of data production processes. Synonyms object-aware process management / datenorientiertes Prozess-Management-System Protagonists Vera Künzle and Prof. Manfred Reichert Organization Ulm University Period 2009 - today Selected publications Implementation PHILharmonicFlows === Distributed Document-oriented === Distributed document-oriented process management (dDPM) enables distributed case handling in heterogeneous system environments and it is based on document-oriented integration. The workflow model reflects the paper-based working practice in inter-institutional healthcare scenarios. It targets distributed knowledge-driven ad hoc workflows, wherein distributed information systems are required to coordinate work with initially unknown sets of actors and activities. The distributed workflow engine supports process planning & process history as well as participant management and process template creation with import/export. The workflow engine embeds a functional fusion of 1) group-based instant messaging 2) with a shared work list editor 3) with version control. The software implementation of dDPM is α-Flow which is available as open source. dDPM and α-Flow provide a content-oriented approach to schema-less workflows. The complete distributed case handling application is provided in form of a single active Document ("α-Doc"). The α-Doc is a case file (as information carrier) with an embedded workflow engine (in form of active properties). Inviting process participants is equivalent to providing them with a copy of an α-Doc, copying it like an ordinary desktop file. All α-Docs that belong to the same case can synchronize each other, based on the participant management, electronic postboxes, store-and-forward messaging, and an offline-capable synchronization protocol. Synonyms distributed document-oriented process management (dDPM), distributed case handling via active documents Protagonists Christoph P. Neumann and Prof. Richard Lenz Organization Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Period 2009 - 2012 Selected Publications and a PhD thesis Implementation α-Flow (open source) == Related Concepts == === Content Management === The bandwidth of Content management systems (CMS) reaches from Web content management systems (WCMS) and Document management system (DMS) to Enterprise Content Management (ECM). Mature DMS products support document production workflows in a basic form, primarily focusing on review cycle workflows concerning a single document. === Groupware and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work === Groupware focuses on messaging (like E-Mail, Chat, and Instant Messaging), shared calendars (e.g. Lotus Notes, Microsoft Outlook with Exchange Server), and conferencing (e.g. Skype). Groupware overlaps with Computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW), that originated from shared multimedia editors (for live drawing/sketching) and synchronous multi-user applications like desktop sharing. The extensive conceptual claim of CSWC must be put into perspective by its actual solution scope, that is available as the CSCW Matrix. === Case Handling === The case handling paradigm stems from Prof. van der Aalst and gained momentum in 2005. The core features are: (a) provide all information available, i.e. present the case as a whole rather than showing bits and pieces, (b) decide about activities on the basis of the information available rather than the activities already executed, (c) separate work distribution from authorization and allow for additional types of roles, not just the execute role, and (d) allow workers to view and add/modify data before or after the corresponding activities have been executed. In healthcare, the flow of a patient between healthcare professionals is considered as a workflow - with activities that inc
Read more →
European Grid Infrastructure

EGI (originally an initialism for European Grid Infrastructure) is a federation of computing and storage resource providers that deliver advanced computing and data analytics services for research and innovation. The Federation is governed by its participants represented in the EGI Council and coordinated by the EGI Foundation. As of 2024, the EGI Federation supports 160 scientific communities worldwide and over 95,000 users in their intensive data analysis. The most significant scientific communities supported by EGI in 2022 were Medical and Health Sciences, High Energy Physics, and Engineering and Technology. The EGI Federation provideds services through over 150 data centres, of which 25 are cloud sites, in 43 countries and 64 Research Infrastructures (4 of which are members of the Federation). == Name == Originally, EGI stood for European Grid Infrastructure. This reflected its focus on providing access to high-throughput computing resources across Europe using Grid computing techniques. However, as EGI's service offerings expanded beyond traditional grid computing, particularly with the incorporation of federated cloud services, the original meaning of the acronym became less accurate. To emphasise the broader scope of EGI's services and avoid any confusion associated with the outdated term "grid," it is recommended to refer to EGI simply as EGI. == Structure == === EGI Federation === The EGI Federation delivers a scalable digital research infrastructure (e-infrastructure), empowering tens of thousands of researchers across diverse scientific disciplines. Through the EGI Federation, researchers gain access to advanced computing and data analytics capabilities, including large-scale data analysis, while benefiting from the collaborative efforts of hundreds of service providers from both public and private sectors, consolidating resources from Europe and beyond. Overall, the EGI Federation offers a range of services, encompassing distributed high-throughput computing and cloud computing, storage and data management capabilities, co-development of new solutions, expert support, and comprehensive training opportunities. This ecosystem propels collaboration, scientific progress and innovation. === EGI Foundation === The EGI Foundation is the coordinating body of the EGI Federation. It was established in 2010 with headquarters in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The Foundation coordinates the research and innovation efforts of its members, spanning technical areas critical to data-intensive science, including large-scale data processing and analysis, distributed Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning, federated Identity and access management and the application of digital twins for research. The day-to-day running of the EGI Foundation is supervised by the Executive Board. The board’s members work closely with the EGI Director on operational, technical and financial issues. The Executive Board’s members are appointed by the EGI Council for a two-year term. === EGI Council === The EGI Council is responsible for defining the strategic direction of the EGI Federation. The Council acts as the senior decision-making and supervisory authority of the EGI Foundation, with a mandate to define the strategic direction of the entire EGI ecosystem. === EGI Services === EGI offers a suite of services to support data-intensive research. These services include compute resources, orchestration tools, storage and data management solutions, training programmes, security and identity services, and applications. Compute resources encompass cloud compute, cloud container compute, high-throughput compute, and software distribution. Orchestration tools include the Workload Manager and infrastructure manager. Storage and data management solutions include online storage, data transfer, and DataHub. Training programmes cover FitSM, ISO 27001, and general training infrastructure. EGI Check-in and Secrets Store are key security and identity services, while applications such as Notebooks and Replay enhance research productivity. In addition to services for Research, EGI also provides services for Federation and Business. Services for Federation are designed to help resource providers and user communities collaborate and share resources. EGI also offers a range of services to support businesses in their digital transformation. Through the EGI Digital Innovation Hub (EGI DIH), companies can access advanced computing resources, networking, funding and training opportunities, collaborate with research institutions, and test solutions before investing. == History == In 2002, the first large-scale experimental facility was successfully demonstrated by the DataGrid project under the lead of CERN with tens of technical architects from the major High Energy Physics institutes in the world. For the first time, distributed computing was applied to data-intensive processing. It aimed at developing a large-scale computational grid to facilitate distributed data-intensive scientific computing across High Energy Physics, Earth Observation, and Biology science applications. On 28 February 2003, the first software release of LCG-MW was published. gLite, the Lightweight Middleware for Grid Computing and LCG, Large Hadron Collider Computing Grid, are the cornerstone of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid, which expanded over time towards the EGI Federation. 2004 marks the year of the first pilot infrastructure, seeing the participation of CERN and data centres in the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Canada, Russia, Bulgaria, the Asia-Pacific region and Switzerland. Over the years, the infrastructure has grown into a federation of 128 data centres and 25 cloud providers serving more than 95,000 users worldwide. In 2004, the first data processing tasks started being formally recorded in a central accounting system. The EGI Accounting Portal provides the accounting data for Compute, Storage and Data services gathered from the data centres of the EGI Federation. A few years later, in 2010, EGI was established as the coordinating body of the EGI Federation to build an integrated pan-European infrastructure to support European research communities primarily. In the same year, EGI launched the flagship project EGI Inspire. That project brought together European organisations to establish a sustainable European Grid Infrastructure for large-scale data analysis. The success of the project was due to the adoption of a distributed computing model to solve big data problems. Moreover, EGI-Inspire harmonised operational policies across its federation of affiliated data centres and cloud service providers worldwide, integrating e-infrastructures from 57 countries. The EGI Federation was the first to apply federation to cloud provisioning, opening a new avenue in large-scale interactive data analysis. In 2015, within EGI Engage, opening a new avenue in large-scale interactive data analysis. The EGI Federated Cloud is an IaaS-type cloud, incorporating academic and private clouds and virtualised resources built using open standards. Its development is driven by the needs of the scientific community, resulting in a novel research e-infrastructure that relies on well-established federated operational services, making EGI a dependable resource for scientific endeavours. In 2015, EGI, EUDAT, GÉANT, LIBER and OpenAIRE published a position paper on a 'European Open Science Cloud for Research'. With the EOSC-hub project in 2016, EGI started contributing in practice to shaping the services for the EOSC. The work continued with a series of projects, like EOSC Enhance, EOSC Life and EOSC Synergy. With EGI-ACE and its contribution to EOSC Future, EGI has continued developing the EOSC Core. In early 2024, EGI started providing services to the EOSC EU Node, and with EOSC Beyond it will provide new EOSC Core capabilities and pilot additional national and thematic nodes. In October 2024, EUDAT, GÉANT, OpenAIRE, PRACE and EGI signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the European e-Infrastructures Assembly. This collaboration will bolster the position and promote the services of e-Infrastructures, empowering researchers across Europe to drive innovation and advance scientific discovery.
Read more →
Data product

In data management and product management, a data product is a reusable, active, and standardized data asset designed to deliver measurable value to its users, whether internal or external, by applying the rigorous principles of product thinking and management. It comprises one or more data artifacts (e.g., datasets, models, pipelines) and is enriched with metadata, including governance policies, data quality rules, data contracts, and, where applicable, a software bill of materials (SBOM) to document its dependencies and components. Ownership of a data product is aligned to a specific domain or use case, ensuring accountability, stewardship, and its continuous evolution throughout its lifecycle. Adhering to the FAIR principles – findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable – a data product is designed to be discoverable, scalable, reusable, and aligned with both business and regulatory standards, driving innovation and efficiency in modern data ecosystems. == History == In 2012, DJ Patil proposed the first documented definition: a data product is a product that facilitates an end goal through the use of data. In 2019, Zhamak Dehghani introduced Data Mesh, with a strong focus on domain-oriented data products. Later, in 2020, she solidifies Data Mesh around four principles, one being Data as a Product, in which she defines Data Product as the node on the mesh that encapsulates three structural components required for its function, providing access to the domain's analytical data as a product. In 2024, Andrea Gioia published one of the first books specifically on data products post Data Mesh announcement. In his book, Gioia defines the concept of pure data product. In 2025, during the Data Day Texas conference, Jean-Georges Perrin and a collective of product managers and data engineers got together to craft the current definition and make it available to the public domain. In July 2025, Bitol, a project of The Linux Foundation, released and early version of the Open Data Product Standard (ODPS) aiming at normalizing data products
Read more →
Operational image

An operational image, also known as operative image, is an image that serves a functional, rather than aesthetic, purpose. Operational images are not intended to be viewed by people as representations of the real world; they are created to be used as instruments in performing some task or operation, often by machine automation. Operational images are used in a wide variety of applications, such as weapons targeting and guidance systems, and assisting surgeons performing robot-assisted surgery. The term "operational image" was first coined in 2000 by German filmmaker Harun Farocki in the first part of his three-part audiovisual installation, Eye/Machine. Farocki's installation included operational images used by militaries, such as weapons guidance and targeting systems. Eye/Machine featured images shown to the public by the United States military from the cameras used by laser-guided missiles in the Gulf War. Farocki defined operational images as "Images without a social goal, not for edification, not for reflection," and that they "do not represent an object, but rather are part of an operation." According to Volker Pantenburg, operational images are more accurately characterized as "visualizations of data". He describes operational images as a "working image" or an image that "performs work". Operational images are ubiquitous in modern society, used for a variety of military and non-military applications, such as inspecting sewer piping, and assisting surgeons performing robotic surgery.
Read more →
Knapsack problem

The knapsack problem is the following problem in combinatorial optimization: Given a set of items, each with a weight and a value, determine which items to include in the collection so that the total weight is less than or equal to a given limit and the total value is as large as possible. It derives its name from the problem faced by someone who is constrained by a fixed-size knapsack and must fill it with the most valuable items. The problem often arises in resource allocation where the decision-makers have to choose from a set of non-divisible projects or tasks under a fixed budget or time constraint, respectively. The knapsack problem has been studied for more than a century, with early works dating back to 1897. The subset sum problem is a special case of the decision and 0-1 problems where for each kind of item, the weight equals the value: w i = v i {\displaystyle w_{i}=v_{i}} . In the field of cryptography, the term knapsack problem is often used to refer specifically to the subset sum problem. The subset sum problem is one of Karp's 21 NP-complete problems. == Applications == Knapsack problems appear in real-world decision-making processes in a wide variety of fields, such as finding the least wasteful way to cut raw materials, selection of investments and portfolios, selection of assets for asset-backed securitization, and generating keys for the Merkle–Hellman and other knapsack cryptosystems. One early application of knapsack algorithms was in the construction and scoring of tests in which the test-takers have a choice as to which questions they answer. For small examples, it is a fairly simple process to provide the test-takers with such a choice. For example, if an exam contains 12 questions each worth 10 points, the test-taker need only answer 10 questions to achieve a maximum possible score of 100 points. However, on tests with a heterogeneous distribution of point values, it is more difficult to provide choices. Feuerman and Weiss proposed a system in which students are given a heterogeneous test with a total of 125 possible points. The students are asked to answer all of the questions to the best of their abilities. Of the possible subsets of problems whose total point values add up to 100, a knapsack algorithm would determine which subset gives each student the highest possible score. A 1999 study of the Stony Brook University Algorithm Repository showed that, out of 75 algorithmic problems related to the field of combinatorial algorithms and algorithm engineering, the knapsack problem was the 19th most popular and the third most needed after suffix trees and the bin packing problem. == Definition == The most common problem being solved is the 0-1 knapsack problem, which restricts the number x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} of copies of each kind of item to zero or one. Given a set of n {\displaystyle n} items numbered from 1 up to n {\displaystyle n} , each with a weight w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} and a value v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} , along with a maximum weight capacity W {\displaystyle W} , maximize ∑ i = 1 n v i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}} subject to ∑ i = 1 n w i x i ≤ W {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}x_{i}\leq W} and x i ∈ { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \{0,1\}} . Here x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} represents the number of instances of item i {\displaystyle i} to include in the knapsack. Informally, the problem is to maximize the sum of the values of the items in the knapsack so that the sum of the weights is less than or equal to the knapsack's capacity. The bounded knapsack problem (BKP) removes the restriction that there is only one of each item, but restricts the number x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} of copies of each kind of item to a maximum non-negative integer value c {\displaystyle c} : maximize ∑ i = 1 n v i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}} subject to ∑ i = 1 n w i x i ≤ W {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}x_{i}\leq W} and x i ∈ { 0 , 1 , 2 , … , c } . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \{0,1,2,\dots ,c\}.} The unbounded knapsack problem (UKP) places no upper bound on the number of copies of each kind of item and can be formulated as above except that the only restriction on x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is that it is a non-negative integer. maximize ∑ i = 1 n v i x i {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}} subject to ∑ i = 1 n w i x i ≤ W {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{i}x_{i}\leq W} and x i ∈ N . {\displaystyle x_{i}\in \mathbb {N} .} One example of the unbounded knapsack problem is given using the figure shown at the beginning of this article and the text "if any number of each book is available" in the caption of that figure. == Computational complexity == The knapsack problem is interesting from the perspective of computer science for many reasons: The decision problem form of the knapsack problem (Can a value of at least V be achieved without exceeding the weight W?) is NP-complete, thus there is no known algorithm that is both correct and fast (polynomial-time) in all cases. There is no known polynomial algorithm which can tell, given a solution, whether it is optimal (which would mean that there is no solution with a larger V). This problem is co-NP-complete. There is a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm using dynamic programming. There is a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme, which uses the pseudo-polynomial time algorithm as a subroutine, described below. Many cases that arise in practice, and "random instances" from some distributions, can nonetheless be solved exactly. There is a link between the "decision" and "optimization" problems in that if there exists a polynomial algorithm that solves the "decision" problem, then one can find the maximum value for the optimization problem in polynomial time by applying this algorithm iteratively while increasing the value of k. On the other hand, if an algorithm finds the optimal value of the optimization problem in polynomial time, then the decision problem can be solved in polynomial time by comparing the value of the solution output by this algorithm with the value of k. Thus, both versions of the problem are of similar difficulty. One theme in research literature is to identify what the "hard" instances of the knapsack problem look like, or viewed another way, to identify what properties of instances in practice might make them more amenable than their worst-case NP-complete behaviour suggests. The goal in finding these "hard" instances is for their use in public-key cryptography systems, such as the Merkle–Hellman knapsack cryptosystem. More generally, better understanding of the structure of the space of instances of an optimization problem helps to advance the study of the particular problem and can improve algorithm selection. Furthermore, notable is the fact that the hardness of the knapsack problem depends on the form of the input. If the weights and profits are given as integers, it is weakly NP-complete, while it is strongly NP-complete if the weights and profits are given as rational numbers. However, in the case of rational weights and profits it still admits a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme. === Unit-cost models === The NP-hardness of the Knapsack problem relates to computational models in which the size of integers matters (such as the Turing machine). In contrast, decision trees count each decision as a single step. Dobkin and Lipton show an 1 2 n 2 {\displaystyle {1 \over 2}n^{2}} lower bound on linear decision trees for the knapsack problem, that is, trees where decision nodes test the sign of affine functions. This was generalized to algebraic decision trees by Steele and Yao. If the elements in the problem are real numbers or rationals, the decision-tree lower bound extends to the real random-access machine model with an instruction set that includes addition, subtraction and multiplication of real numbers, as well as comparison and either division or remaindering ("floor"). This model covers more algorithms than the algebraic decision-tree model, as it encompasses algorithms that use indexing into tables. However, in this model all program steps are counted, not just decisions. An upper bound for a decision-tree model was given by Meyer auf der Heide who showed that for every n there exists an O(n4)-deep linear decision tree that solves the subset-sum problem with n items. Note that this does not imply any upper bound for an algorithm that should solve the problem for any given n. == Solving == Several algorithms are available to solve knapsack problems, based on the dynamic programming approach, the branch and bound approach or hybridizations of both approaches. === Dynamic programming in-advance algorithm === The unbounded knapsack problem (UKP) places no restriction on the number of copies of each kind of item. Besides, here we assume that x i > 0 {\displaystyle x_{i}>0} m [ w ′ ] = max ( ∑ i = 1 n v i x i ) {\displaystyle m[w']=\max \left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}v_{i}x_{i}\right)} subject to ∑
Read more →
Cryptographic nonce

In cryptography, a nonce is an arbitrary number that can be used just once in a cryptographic communication. It is often a random or pseudo-random number issued in an authentication protocol to ensure that each communication session is unique, and therefore that old communications cannot be reused in replay attacks. Nonces can also be useful as initialization vectors and in cryptographic hash functions. == Definition == A nonce is an arbitrary number used only once in a cryptographic communication, in the spirit of a nonce word. They are often random or pseudo-random numbers. Many nonces also include a timestamp to ensure exact timeliness, though this requires clock synchronisation between organisations. The addition of a client nonce ("cnonce") helps to improve the security in some ways as implemented in digest access authentication. To ensure that a nonce is used only once, it should be time-variant (including a suitably fine-grained timestamp in its value), or generated with enough random bits to ensure an insignificantly low chance of repeating a previously generated value. Some authors define pseudo-randomness (or unpredictability) as a requirement for a nonce. Nonce is a word dating back to Middle English for something only used once or temporarily (often with the construction "for the nonce"). It descends from the construction "then anes" ("the one [purpose]"). A false etymology claiming it to stand for "number used once" or similar is incorrect. == Usage == === Authentication === Authentication protocols may use nonces to ensure that old communications cannot be reused in replay attacks. For instance, nonces are used in HTTP digest access authentication to calculate an MD5 digest of the password. The nonces are different each time the 401 authentication challenge response code is presented, thus making replay attacks virtually impossible. The scenario of ordering products over the Internet can provide an example of the usefulness of nonces in replay attacks. An attacker could take the encrypted information and—without needing to decrypt—could continue to send a particular order to the supplier, thereby ordering products over and over again under the same name and purchase information. The nonce is used to give 'originality' to a given message so that if the company receives any other orders from the same person with the same nonce, it will discard those as invalid orders. A nonce may be used to ensure security for a stream cipher. Where the same key is used for more than one message and then a different nonce is used to ensure that the keystream is different for different messages encrypted with that key; often the message number is used. Secret nonce values are used by the Lamport signature scheme as a signer-side secret which can be selectively revealed for comparison to public hashes for signature creation and verification. === Hashing === Nonces are used in proof-of-work systems to vary the input to a cryptographic hash function so as to obtain a hash for a certain input that fulfils certain arbitrary conditions. In doing so, it becomes far more difficult to create a "desirable" hash than to verify it, shifting the burden of work onto one side of a transaction or system. For example, proof of work, using hash functions, was considered as a means to combat email spam by forcing email senders to find a hash value for the email (which included a timestamp to prevent pre-computation of useful hashes for later use) that had an arbitrary number of leading zeroes, by hashing the same input with a large number of values until a "desirable" hash was obtained. Similarly, the Bitcoin blockchain hashing algorithm can be tuned to an arbitrary difficulty by changing the required minimum/maximum value of the hash so that the number of bitcoins awarded for new blocks does not increase linearly with increased network computation power as new users join. This is likewise achieved by forcing Bitcoin miners to add nonce values to the value being hashed to change the hash algorithm output. As cryptographic hash algorithms cannot easily be predicted based on their inputs, this makes the act of blockchain hashing and the possibility of being awarded bitcoins something of a lottery, where the first "miner" to find a nonce that delivers a desirable hash is awarded bitcoins.
Read more →
Cognos ReportNet

Cognos ReportNet (CRN) was a web-based software product for creating and managing ad hoc and custom-made reports. ReportNet was developed by the Ottawa-based company Cognos (formerly Cognos Incorporated), an IBM company. The web-based reporting tool was launched in September 2003. Since IBM's acquisition of Cognos, ReportNet has been renamed IBM Cognos ReportNet like all other Cognos products. ReportNet uses web services standards such as XML and Simple Object Access Protocol and also supports dynamic HTML and Java. ReportNet is compatible with multiple databases including Oracle, SAP, Teradata, Microsoft SQL server, DB2 and Sybase. The product provides interface in over 10 languages, has Web Services architecture to meet the needs of multi-national, diversified enterprises and helps reduce total cost of ownership. Multiple versions of Cognos ReportNet have since been released by the company. Cognos ReportNet was awarded the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) 2005 Codie awards for the "Best Business Intelligence or Knowledge Management Solution" category. CRN's capabilities have been further used in IBM Cognos 8 BI (2005), the latest reporting tool. CRN comes with its own software development kit (SDK). == Launch == Early adopters of Cognos ReportNet for their corporate reporting needs included Bear Stearns, BMW and Alfred Publishing. Around this same time of launch, Cognos competitor Business Objects released version 6.1 of its enterprise reporting tool. Cognos ReportNet has been successful since its launch, raising revenues in 2004 from licensing fees. == Controversy == Cognos rival Business Objects announced in 2005 that BusinessObjects XI significantly outperformed Cognos ReportNet in benchmark tests conducted by VeriTest, an independent software testing firm. The tests performed showed Cognos ReportNet performed poorly when processing styled reports, complex business reports and combination of both. The tests reported a massive 21 times higher report throughput for BusinessObjects XI than Cognos ReportNet at capacity loads. Cognos soon dismissed the claims by stating Business Objects dictated the environment and testing criteria and Cognos did not provide the software to participate in benchmark test. Cognos later performed their own test to demonstrate Cognos ReportNet capabilities. == Components == Cognos Report Studio – A Web-based product for creating complex professional looking reports. Cognos Query Studio - A Web-based product for creating ad-hoc reports. Cognos Framework Manager – A metadata modeling tool to create BI metadata for reporting and dashboard applications. Cognos Connection – Main portal used to access reports, schedule reports and perform administrator activities. == Versions == Cognos ReportNet 1.1 – Java EE-style professional web-based authoring tool. (base version) Cognos ReportNet IBM Special Edition – comes with an embedded version of IBM WebSphere as its application server and IBM DB2 as its data store. Cognos Linux – for Intel-based Linux platforms.
Read more →
Error level analysis

Error level analysis (ELA) is the analysis of compression artifacts in digital data with lossy compression such as JPEG. == Principles == When used, lossy compression is normally applied uniformly to a set of data, such as an image, resulting in a uniform level of compression artifacts. Alternatively, the data may consist of parts with different levels of compression artifacts. This difference may arise from the different parts having been repeatedly subjected to the same lossy compression a different number of times, or the different parts having been subjected to different kinds of lossy compression. A difference in the level of compression artifacts in different parts of the data may therefore indicate that the data has been edited. In the case of JPEG, even a composite with parts subjected to matching compressions will have a difference in the compression artifacts. In order to make the typically faint compression artifacts more readily visible, the data to be analyzed is subjected to an additional round of lossy compression, this time at a known, uniform level, and the result is subtracted from the original data under investigation. The resulting difference image is then inspected manually for any variation in the level of compression artifacts. In 2007, N. Krawetz denoted this method "error level analysis". Additionally, digital data formats such as JPEG sometimes include metadata describing the specific lossy compression used. If in such data the observed compression artifacts differ from those expected from the given metadata description, then the metadata may not describe the actual compressed data, and thus indicate that the data have been edited. == Limitations == By its nature, data without lossy compression, such as a PNG image, cannot be subjected to error level analysis. Consequently, since editing could have been performed on data without lossy compression with lossy compression applied uniformly to the edited, composite data, the presence of a uniform level of compression artifacts does not rule out editing of the data. Additionally, any non-uniform compression artifacts in a composite may be removed by subjecting the composite to repeated, uniform lossy compression. Also, if the image color space is reduced to 256 colors or less, for example, by conversion to GIF, then error level analysis will generate useless results. More significant, the actual interpretation of the level of compression artifacts in a given segment of the data is subjective, and the determination of whether editing has occurred is therefore not robust. == Controversy == In May 2013, Dr Neal Krawetz used error level analysis on the 2012 World Press Photo of the Year and concluded on his Hacker Factor blog that it was "a composite" with modifications that "fail to adhere to the acceptable journalism standards used by Reuters, Associated Press, Getty Images, National Press Photographer's Association, and other media outlets". The World Press Photo organizers responded by letting two independent experts analyze the image files of the winning photographer and subsequently confirmed the integrity of the files. One of the experts, Hany Farid, said about error level analysis that "It incorrectly labels altered images as original and incorrectly labels original images as altered with the same likelihood". Krawetz responded by clarifying that "It is up to the user to interpret the results. Any errors in identification rest solely on the viewer". In May 2015, the citizen journalism team Bellingcat wrote that error level analysis revealed that the Russian Ministry of Defense had edited satellite images related to the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster. In a reaction to this, image forensics expert Jens Kriese said about error level analysis: "The method is subjective and not based entirely on science", and that it is "a method used by hobbyists". On his Hacker Factor Blog, the inventor of error level analysis Neal Krawetz criticized both Bellingcat's use of error level analysis as "misinterpreting the results" but also on several points Jens Kriese's "ignorance" regarding error level analysis.
Read more →
Social trading

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

Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory (CMTL) is an information technology (IT) computer security testing laboratory that is accredited to conduct cryptographic module evaluations for conformance to the FIPS 140-2 U.S. Government standard. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accredits CMTLs to meet Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP) standards and procedures. This has been replaced by FIPS 140-2 and the Cryptographic Module Validation Program (CMVP). == CMTL requirements == These laboratories must meet the following requirements: NIST Handbook 150, NVLAP Procedures and General Requirements NIST Handbook 150-17 Information Technology Security Testing - Cryptographic Module Testing NVLAP Specific Operations Checklist for Cryptographic Module Testing == FIPS 140-2 in relation to the Common Criteria == A CMTL can also be a Common Criteria (CC) Testing Laboratory (CCTL). The CC and FIPS 140-2 are different in the abstractness and focus of evaluation. FIPS 140-2 testing is against a defined cryptographic module and provides a suite of conformance tests to four FIPS 140 security levels. FIPS 140-2 describes the requirements for cryptographic modules and includes such areas as physical security, key management, self tests, roles and services, etc. The standard was initially developed in 1994 - prior to the development of the CC. The CC is an evaluation against a Protection Profile (PP), or security target (ST). Typically, a PP covers a broad range of products. A CC evaluation does not supersede or replace a validation to either FIPS 140-1, FIPS140-2 or FIPS 140-3. The four security levels in FIPS 140-1 and FIPS 140-2 do not map directly to specific CC EALs or to CC functional requirements. A CC certificate cannot be a substitute for a FIPS 140-1 or FIPS 140-2 certificate. If the operational environment is a modifiable operational environment, the operating system requirements of the Common Criteria are applicable at FIPS Security Levels 2 and above. FIPS 140-1 required evaluated operating systems that referenced the Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) classes C2, B1 and B2. However, TCSEC is no longer in use and has been replaced by the Common Criteria. Consequently, FIPS 140-2 now references the Common Criteria. FIPS 140-2 or FIPS 140-3 validation efforts can be in some parts reused in Common Criteria evaluations, specifically in areas related to entropy source and cryptographic algorithms.
Read more →
Manufacturing Automation Protocol

Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) was a computer network standard released in 1982 for interconnection of devices from multiple manufacturers. It was developed by General Motors to combat the proliferation of incompatible communications standards used by suppliers of automation products such as programmable controllers. By 1985 demonstrations of interoperability were carried out and 21 vendors offered MAP products. In 1986 the Boeing corporation merged its Technical Office Protocol with the MAP standard, and the combined standard was referred to as "MAP/TOP". The standard was revised several times between the first issue in 1982 and MAP 3.0 in 1987, with significant technical changes that made interoperation between different revisions of the standard difficult. Although promoted and used by manufacturers such as General Motors, Boeing, and others, it lost market share to the contemporary Ethernet standard and was not widely adopted. Difficulties included changing protocol specifications, the expense of MAP interface links, and the speed penalty of a token-passing network. The token bus network protocol used by MAP became standardized as IEEE standard 802.4 but this committee disbanded in 2004 due to lack of industry attention.
Read more →
Business Controls Corporation

Business Controls Corporation is a privately held computer company that developed an application-program-generator and also a series of accounting software packages. These packages were widely enough used for various business magazines to have back-of-the-book ads for companies seeking accountants with experience in one or more of them. Computer magazines ran coverage for their SB-5 application-program-generator as from time to time new versions were released, each with new or improved features. == Early days == The company's initial offerings were packages for the DEC PDP-8, although Business Controls Corporation also wrote custom-written programs for customers. Large customers with mainframes who also used smaller systems for departmental use and distributed processing also used BCC's services. == SB-5 == The addition of an application-program-generator named SB-5 that, from specifications, could generate COBOL code was a major step forward. Although this began with supporting the DEC PDP-11, they subsequently began to support COBOL on DEC's DECsystem-10 & DECSYSTEM-20. VAX support came later. The specifications also permitted COBOL inserts and overrides: SB-5 could build an application that was all COBOL, yet only code the portions that varied from BCC's "vanilla" accounting packages. === Similar offerings === A similar idea was done for the IBM mainframe world in the form of a series of application-program-generators from Dylakor Corporation. They were named DYL-250, DYL-260, DYL-270 & DYL-280. Dylakor was acquired by Computer Associates. The specific syntax was different, but it had wider use, and - a mark of success and recognition in the industry - syntax-compatible implementations were released by a competitor. Still another alternative was Peat Marwick Mitchell's PMM2170 application-program-generator package. Like the others, it supported COBOL inserts and overrides. === Extended integration === Business Controls Corporation subsequently extended SB-5's feature set to provide support for System 1022, a product for the DECsystem-10 & DECSYSTEM-20; 1022's vendor also had a VAX/VMS (later OpenVMS) product, System 1032.
Read more →
Signatures with efficient protocols

Signatures with efficient protocols are a form of digital signature invented by Jan Camenisch and Anna Lysyanskaya in 2001. In addition to being secure digital signatures, they need to allow for the efficient implementation of two protocols: A protocol for computing a digital signature in a secure two-party computation protocol. A protocol for proving knowledge of a digital signature in a zero-knowledge protocol. In applications, the first protocol allows a signer to possess the signing key to issue a signature to a user (the signature owner) without learning all the messages being signed or the complete signature. The second protocol allows the signature owner to prove that he has a signature on many messages without revealing the signature and only a (possibly) empty subset of the messages. The combination of these two protocols allows for the implementation of digital credential and ecash protocols.
Read more →
POODLE

POODLE (which stands for "Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption") is a security vulnerability which takes advantage of the fallback to SSL 3.0. If attackers successfully exploit this vulnerability, on average, they only need to make 256 SSL 3.0 requests to reveal one byte of encrypted messages. Bodo Möller, Thai Duong and Krzysztof Kotowicz from the Google Security Team discovered this vulnerability; they disclosed the vulnerability publicly on October 14, 2014 (despite the paper being dated "September 2014"). On December 8, 2014, a variation of the POODLE vulnerability that affected TLS was announced. The CVE-ID associated with the original POODLE attack is CVE-2014-3566. F5 Networks filed for CVE-2014-8730 as well, see POODLE attack against TLS section below. == Prevention == To mitigate the POODLE attack, one approach is to completely disable SSL 3.0 on the client side and the server side. However, some old clients and servers do not support TLS 1.0 and above. Thus, the authors of the paper on POODLE attacks also encourage browser and server implementation of TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV, which will make downgrade attacks impossible. Another mitigation is to implement "anti-POODLE record splitting". It splits the records into several parts and ensures none of them can be attacked. However the problem of the splitting is that, though valid according to the specification, it may also cause compatibility issues due to problems in server-side implementations. A full list of browser versions and levels of vulnerability to different attacks (including POODLE) can be found in the article Transport Layer Security. Opera 25 implemented this mitigation in addition to TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV. Google's Chrome browser and their servers had already supported TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV. Google stated in October 2014 it was planning to remove SSL 3.0 support from their products completely within a few months. Fallback to SSL 3.0 has been disabled in Chrome 39, released in November 2014. SSL 3.0 has been disabled by default in Chrome 40, released in January 2015. Mozilla disabled SSL 3.0 in Firefox 34 and ESR 31.3, which were released in December 2014, and added support of TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV in Firefox 35. Microsoft published a security advisory to explain how to disable SSL 3.0 in Internet Explorer and Windows OS, and on October 29, 2014, Microsoft released a fix which disables SSL 3.0 in Internet Explorer on Windows Vista / Server 2003 and above and announced a plan to disable SSL 3.0 by default in their products and services within a few months. Microsoft disabled fallback to SSL 3.0 in Internet Explorer 11 for Protect Mode sites on February 10, 2015, and for other sites on April 14, 2015. Apple's Safari (on OS X 10.8, iOS 8.1 and later) mitigated against POODLE by removing support for all CBC protocols in SSL 3.0, however, this left RC4 which is also completely broken by the RC4 attacks in SSL 3.0. POODLE was completely mitigated in OS X 10.11 (El Capitan 2015) and iOS 9 (2015). To prevent the POODLE attack, some web services dropped support of SSL 3.0. Examples include CloudFlare and Wikimedia. Network Security Services version 3.17.1 (released on October 3, 2014) and 3.16.2.3 (released on October 27, 2014) introduced support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV, and NSS will disable SSL 3.0 by default in April 2015. OpenSSL versions 1.0.1j, 1.0.0o and 0.9.8zc, released on October 15, 2014, introduced support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV. LibreSSL version 2.1.1, released on October 16, 2014, disabled SSL 3.0 by default. == POODLE attack against TLS == A new variant of the original POODLE attack was announced on December 8, 2014. This attack exploits implementation flaws of CBC encryption mode in the TLS 1.0 - 1.2 protocols. Even though TLS specifications require servers to check the padding, some implementations fail to validate it properly, which makes some servers vulnerable to POODLE even if they disable SSL 3.0. SSL Pulse showed "about 10% of the servers are vulnerable to the POODLE attack against TLS" before this vulnerability was announced. The CVE-ID for F5 Networks' implementation bug is CVE-2014-8730. The entry in NIST's NVD states that this CVE-ID is to be used only for F5 Networks' implementation of TLS, and that other vendors whose products have the same failure to validate the padding mistake in their implementations like A10 Networks and Cisco Systems need to issue their own CVE-IDs for their implementation errors because this is not a flaw in the protocol but in the implementation. The POODLE attack against TLS was found to be easier to initiate than the initial POODLE attack against SSL. There is no need to downgrade clients to SSL 3.0, meaning fewer steps are needed to execute a successful attack.
Read more →