A Web application firewall (WAF) is a specific form of application firewall that filters, monitors, and blocks HTTP traffic to and from a web service. By inspecting HTTP traffic, it can prevent attacks exploiting a Web application's known vulnerabilities, such as SQL injection, cross-site scripting (XSS), file inclusion, and improper system configuration. Financial institutions often utilize WAFs to help in the mitigation of Web application zero-day vulnerabilities, as well as hard-to-patch bugs or weaknesses through custom attack signature strings. == History == Dedicated Web application firewalls entered the market in the late 1990s during a time when web server attacks were becoming more prevalent. Early WAF products, from Kavado and Gilian technologies, tried to solve the increasing amount of attacks on Web applications in the late 1990s. In 2002, the open-source project ModSecurity was formed in order to make WAF technology more accessible. They finalized a core rule set for protecting Web applications, based on OASIS Web Application Security Technical Committee’s (WAS TC) vulnerability work. In 2003, they expanded and standardized rules through the Open Web Application Security Project’s (OWASP) Top 10 List, an annual ranking for Web security vulnerabilities. This list would become the industry standard for Web application security compliance. Since then, the market has continued to grow and evolve, especially focusing on credit card fraud prevention. With the development of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), a standardization of control over cardholder data, security has become more regulated in this sector. == Description == A Web application firewall is a special type of application firewall that applies specifically to Web applications. It is deployed in front of Web applications and analyzes bi-directional web-based (HTTP) traffic – detecting and blocking anything malicious. The OWASP provides a broad technical definition for a WAF as “a security solution on the Web application level which – from a technical point of view – does not depend on the application itself”. According to the PCI DSS Information Supplement for requirement 6.6, a WAF is defined as “a security policy enforcement point positioned between a Web application and the client endpoint. This functionality can be implemented in software or hardware, running in an appliance device, or in a typical server running a common operating system. It may be a stand-alone device or integrated into other network components.” In other words, a WAF can be a virtual or physical appliance that prevents vulnerabilities in Web applications from being exploited by outside threats. These vulnerabilities may be because the application itself is a legacy type or was insufficiently coded by design. The WAF addresses these code shortcomings by special configurations of rule-sets, also known as policies. Previously unknown vulnerabilities can be discovered through penetration testing or via a vulnerability scanner. A Web application vulnerability scanner, also known as a web application security scanner, is defined in the SAMATE NIST 500-269 as “an automated program that examines Web applications for potential security vulnerabilities. In addition to searching for Web application-specific vulnerabilities, the tools also look for software coding errors.” Resolving vulnerabilities is commonly referred to as remediation. Corrections to the code can be made in the application, but typically a more prompt response is necessary. In these situations, the application of a custom policy for a unique Web application vulnerability to provide a temporary but immediate fix (known as a virtual patch) may be necessary. WAFs are not an ultimate security solution, rather they are meant to be used in conjunction with other network perimeter security solutions such as network firewalls and intrusion prevention systems to provide a holistic defense strategy. WAFs typically follow a positive security model, a negative security, or a combination of both as mentioned by the SANS Institute. WAFs use a combination of rule-based logic, parsing, and signatures to detect and prevent attacks such as cross-site scripting and SQL injection. In general, features like browser emulation, obfuscation and virtualization, and IP obfuscation are used to attempt to bypass WAFs. The OWASP produces a list of the top ten Web application security flaws. All commercial WAF offerings cover these ten flaws at a minimum. There are non-commercial options as well. As mentioned earlier, the well-known open-source WAF engine called ModSecurity is one of these options. A WAF engine alone is insufficient to provide adequate protection, therefore OWASP along with Trustwave's Spiderlabs help organize and maintain a Core-Rule Set via GitHub to use with the ModSecurity WAF engine. == Deployment options == Although the names for operating mode may differ, WAFs are basically deployed inline in three different ways. According to NSS Labs, deployment options are transparent bridge, transparent reverse proxy, and reverse proxy. "Transparent" refers to the fact that the HTTP traffic is sent straight to the Web application, therefore the WAF is transparent between the client and server. This is in contrast to reverse proxy, where the WAF acts as a proxy, and the client’s traffic is sent directly to the WAF. The WAF then separately sends filtered traffic to Web applications. This can provide additional benefits such as IP masking but may introduce disadvantages such as performance latencies. == JA3 fingerprint == JA3, developed by Salesforce in 2017, is a technique for generating a unique fingerprint for SSL/TLS traffic based on specific fields in the handshake, such as the version, cipher suites, and extensions used by the client. This fingerprint enables the identification and tracking of clients based on the characteristics of their encrypted traffic. In the context of distributed denial of service (DDoS) protection, JA3 fingerprints are used to detect and differentiate malicious traffic, often associated with attack bots, from legitimate traffic, allowing for more precise filtering of potential threats. In September 2023, AWS WAF announced built-in support for JA3, enabling customers to inspect the JA3 fingerprints of incoming requests. JA3 was deprecated in May 2025 in favor of JA4. JA4 is currently patent pending.
Universal IR Evaluation
In computer science, Universal IR Evaluation (information retrieval evaluation) aims to develop measures of database retrieval performance that shall be comparable across all information retrieval tasks. == Measures of "relevance" == IR (information retrieval) evaluation begins whenever a user submits a query (search term) to a database. If the user is able to determine the relevance of each document in the database (relevant or not relevant), then for each query, the complete set of documents is naturally divided into four distinct (mutually exclusive) subsets: relevant documents that are retrieved, not relevant documents that are retrieved, relevant documents that are not retrieved, and not relevant documents that are not retrieved. These four subsets (of documents) are denoted by the letters a, b, c, d respectively and are called Swets variables, named after their inventor. In addition to the Swets definitions, four relevance metrics have also been defined: Recall refers to the fraction of relevant documents that are retrieved (a/(a+b)), and Precision refers to the fraction of retrieved documents that are relevant (a/(a+c)). These are the most commonly used and well-known relevance metrics found in the IR evaluation literature. Two less commonly used metrics include the Fallout, i.e., the fraction of not relevant documents that are retrieved (b/(b+d)), and the Miss, which refers to the fraction of relevant documents that are not retrieved (c/(c+d)) during any given search. == Universal IR evaluation techniques == Universal IR evaluation addresses the mathematical possibilities and relationships among the four relevance metrics Precision, Recall, Fallout and Miss, denoted by P, R, F and M, respectively. One aspect of the problem involves finding a mathematical derivation of a complete set of universal IR evaluation points. The complete set of 16 points, each one a quadruple of the form (P, R, F, M), describes all the possible universal IR outcomes. For example, many of us have had the experience of querying a database and not retrieving any documents at all. In this case, the Precision would take on the undetermined form 0/0, the Recall and Fallout would both be zero, and the Miss would be any value greater than zero and less than one (assuming a mix of relevant and not relevant documents were in the database, none of which were retrieved). This universal IR evaluation point would thus be denoted by (0/0, 0, 0, M), which represents only one of the 16 possible universal IR outcomes. The mathematics of universal IR evaluation is a fairly new subject since the relevance metrics P, R, F, M were not analyzed collectively until recently (within the past decade). A lot of the theoretical groundwork has already been formulated, but new insights in this area await discovery.
T-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding
t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) is a statistical method for visualizing high-dimensional data by giving each datapoint a location in a two or three-dimensional map. It is based on Stochastic Neighbor Embedding originally developed by Geoffrey Hinton and Sam Roweis, where Laurens van der Maaten and Hinton proposed the t-distributed variant. It is a nonlinear dimensionality reduction technique for embedding high-dimensional data for visualization in a low-dimensional space of two or three dimensions. Specifically, it models each high-dimensional object by a two- or three-dimensional point in such a way that similar objects are modeled by nearby points and dissimilar objects are modeled by distant points with high probability. The t-SNE algorithm comprises two main stages. First, t-SNE constructs a probability distribution over pairs of high-dimensional objects in such a way that similar objects are assigned a higher probability while dissimilar points are assigned a lower probability. Second, t-SNE defines a similar probability distribution over the points in the low-dimensional map, and it minimizes the Kullback–Leibler divergence (KL divergence) between the two distributions with respect to the locations of the points in the map. While the original algorithm uses the Euclidean distance between objects as the base of its similarity metric, this can be changed as appropriate. A Riemannian variant is UMAP. t-SNE has been used for visualization in a wide range of applications, including genomics, computer security research, natural language processing, music analysis, cancer research, bioinformatics, geological domain interpretation, and biomedical signal processing. For a data set with n {\displaystyle n} elements, t-SNE runs in O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} time and requires O ( n 2 ) {\displaystyle O(n^{2})} space. == Details == Given a set of N {\displaystyle N} high-dimensional objects x 1 , … , x N {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {x} _{N}} , t-SNE first computes probabilities p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} that are proportional to the similarity of objects x i {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{i}} and x j {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} _{j}} , as follows. For i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} , define p j ∣ i = exp ( − ‖ x i − x j ‖ 2 / 2 σ i 2 ) ∑ k ≠ i exp ( − ‖ x i − x k ‖ 2 / 2 σ i 2 ) {\displaystyle p_{j\mid i}={\frac {\exp(-\lVert \mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {x} _{j}\rVert ^{2}/2\sigma _{i}^{2})}{\sum _{k\neq i}\exp(-\lVert \mathbf {x} _{i}-\mathbf {x} _{k}\rVert ^{2}/2\sigma _{i}^{2})}}} and set p i ∣ i = 0 {\displaystyle p_{i\mid i}=0} . Note the above denominator ensures ∑ j p j ∣ i = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}p_{j\mid i}=1} for all i {\displaystyle i} . As van der Maaten and Hinton explained: "The similarity of datapoint x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} to datapoint x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} is the conditional probability, p j | i {\displaystyle p_{j|i}} , that x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} would pick x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} as its neighbor if neighbors were picked in proportion to their probability density under a Gaussian centered at x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} ." Now define p i j = p j ∣ i + p i ∣ j 2 N {\displaystyle p_{ij}={\frac {p_{j\mid i}+p_{i\mid j}}{2N}}} This is motivated because p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} and p j {\displaystyle p_{j}} from the N samples are estimated as 1/N, so the conditional probability can be written as p i ∣ j = N p i j {\displaystyle p_{i\mid j}=Np_{ij}} and p j ∣ i = N p j i {\displaystyle p_{j\mid i}=Np_{ji}} . Since p i j = p j i {\displaystyle p_{ij}=p_{ji}} , you can obtain previous formula. Also note that p i i = 0 {\displaystyle p_{ii}=0} and ∑ i , j p i j = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{i,j}p_{ij}=1} . The bandwidth of the Gaussian kernels σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} is set in such a way that the entropy of the conditional distribution equals a predefined entropy using the bisection method. As a result, the bandwidth is adapted to the density of the data: smaller values of σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} are used in denser parts of the data space. The entropy increases with the perplexity of this distribution P i {\displaystyle P_{i}} ; this relation is seen as P e r p ( P i ) = 2 H ( P i ) {\displaystyle Perp(P_{i})=2^{H(P_{i})}} where H ( P i ) {\displaystyle H(P_{i})} is the Shannon entropy H ( P i ) = − ∑ j p j | i log 2 p j | i . {\displaystyle H(P_{i})=-\sum _{j}p_{j|i}\log _{2}p_{j|i}.} The perplexity is a hand-chosen parameter of t-SNE, and as the authors state, "perplexity can be interpreted as a smooth measure of the effective number of neighbors. The performance of SNE is fairly robust to changes in the perplexity, and typical values are between 5 and 50.". Since the Gaussian kernel uses the Euclidean distance ‖ x i − x j ‖ {\displaystyle \lVert x_{i}-x_{j}\rVert } , it is affected by the curse of dimensionality, and in high dimensional data when distances lose the ability to discriminate, the p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} become too similar (asymptotically, they would converge to a constant). It has been proposed to adjust the distances with a power transform, based on the intrinsic dimension of each point, to alleviate this. t-SNE aims to learn a d {\displaystyle d} -dimensional map y 1 , … , y N {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{1},\dots ,\mathbf {y} _{N}} (with y i ∈ R d {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} and d {\displaystyle d} typically chosen as 2 or 3) that reflects the similarities p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} as well as possible. To this end, it measures similarities q i j {\displaystyle q_{ij}} between two points in the map y i {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}} and y j {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{j}} , using a very similar approach. Specifically, for i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} , define q i j {\displaystyle q_{ij}} as q i j = ( 1 + ‖ y i − y j ‖ 2 ) − 1 ∑ k ∑ l ≠ k ( 1 + ‖ y k − y l ‖ 2 ) − 1 {\displaystyle q_{ij}={\frac {(1+\lVert \mathbf {y} _{i}-\mathbf {y} _{j}\rVert ^{2})^{-1}}{\sum _{k}\sum _{l\neq k}(1+\lVert \mathbf {y} _{k}-\mathbf {y} _{l}\rVert ^{2})^{-1}}}} and set q i i = 0 {\displaystyle q_{ii}=0} . Herein a heavy-tailed Student t-distribution (with one-degree of freedom, which is the same as a Cauchy distribution) is used to measure similarities between low-dimensional points in order to allow dissimilar objects to be modeled far apart in the map. The locations of the points y i {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}} in the map are determined by minimizing the (non-symmetric) Kullback–Leibler divergence of the distribution P {\displaystyle P} from the distribution Q {\displaystyle Q} , that is: K L ( P ∥ Q ) = ∑ i ≠ j p i j log p i j q i j {\displaystyle \mathrm {KL} \left(P\parallel Q\right)=\sum _{i\neq j}p_{ij}\log {\frac {p_{ij}}{q_{ij}}}} The minimization of the Kullback–Leibler divergence with respect to the points y i {\displaystyle \mathbf {y} _{i}} is performed using gradient descent. The result of this optimization is a map that reflects the similarities between the high-dimensional inputs. == Output == While t-SNE plots often seem to display clusters, the visual clusters can be strongly influenced by the chosen parameterization (especially the perplexity) and so a good understanding of the parameters for t-SNE is needed. Such "clusters" can be shown to even appear in structured data with no clear clustering, and so may be false findings. Similarly, the size of clusters produced by t-SNE is not informative, and neither is the distance between clusters. Thus, interactive exploration may be needed to choose parameters and validate results. It has been shown that t-SNE can often recover well-separated clusters, and with special parameter choices, approximates a simple form of spectral clustering. == Software == A C++ implementation of Barnes-Hut is available on the github account of one of the original authors. The R package Rtsne implements t-SNE in R. ELKI contains tSNE, also with Barnes-Hut approximation scikit-learn, a popular machine learning library in Python implements t-SNE with both exact solutions and the Barnes-Hut approximation. Tensorboard, the visualization kit associated with TensorFlow, also implements t-SNE (online version) The Julia package TSne implements t-SNE
Generalized blockmodeling
In generalized blockmodeling, the blockmodeling is done by "the translation of an equivalence type into a set of permitted block types", which differs from the conventional blockmodeling, which is using the indirect approach. It's a special instance of the direct blockmodeling approach. Generalized blockmodeling was introduced in 1994 by Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj and Anuška Ferligoj. == Definition == Generalized blockmodeling approach is a direct one, "where the optimal partition(s) is (are) identified based on minimal values of a compatible criterion function defined by the difference between empirical blocks and corresponding ideal blocks". At the same time, the much broader set of block types is introduced (while in conventional blockmodeling only certain types are used). The conventional blockmodeling is inductive due to nonspecification of neither the clusters or the location of block types, while in generalized blockmodeling the blockmodel is specified with more detail than just the permition of certain block types (e.g., prespecification). Further, it's possible to define departures from the permitted (ideal) blocktype, using criterion function. Using local optimization procedure, firstly the initial clustering (with specified number of clusters is done, based on random creation. How the clusters are neighboring to each other, is based on two transformations: 1) a vertex is moved from one to another cluster or 2) a pair of vertices is interchanged between two different clusters. This process of transformation steps is repeated many times, until only the best fitting partitions (with the minimized value of the criterion function) are kept as blockmodels for the future exploration of the network. Different types of generalized blockmodeling are: generalized binary blockmodeling, generalized valued blockmodeling and generalized homogeneity blockmodeling. == Benefits == According to Patrick Doreian, the benefits of generalized blockmodeling, are as follows: usage of explicit criterion function, compatible with a given type of equivalence, results to in-built measure of fit, which is integral to the establishment of the blockmodels (in conventional blockmodeling, there is no compelling and coherent measures of fit); partitions, based on generalized blockmodeling, regularly outperform and never perform less well than the partitions, based on conventional approach; with generalized blockmodeling it's possible to specify new types of blockmodels; this potentially unlimited set of new block types also results in permittion of inclusion of substantively driven blockmodels; in generalized blockmodeling, the specification of the block types and the location of some of them in the blockmodel is possible; researcher can speficy which (pair of) vertices must be (not) clustered together; this approach also allows the imposition of penalties, resulting into identification of empirical null blocks without inconsistencies with a corresponding ideal null block. == Problems == According to Doreian, the problems of generalized blockmodeling, are as follows: unknown sensitivity to particular data features, examination of boundary problems, computationally burdensome, which results in a constraint regarding practical network size (generalized blockmodeling is thus primarily used to analyse smaller networks (below 100 units)), identifying structure from incomplete network information, most of generalized blockmodeling is based on binary networks, but there is also development in the field of valued networks, criterion function is minimized for a specified blockmodel, with results in issues of evaluating statistically, based on the structural data alone, problems regarding three dimensional network data, problems regarding the evolution of fundamental network structure. == Book == The book with the same title, Generalized blockmodeling, written by Patrick Doreian, Vladimir Batagelj and Anuška Ferligoj, was in 2007 awarded the Harrison White Outstanding Book Award by the Mathematical Sociology Section of American Sociological Association.
Junction tree algorithm
The junction tree algorithm (also known as 'Clique Tree') is a method used in machine learning to extract marginalization in general graphs. In essence, it entails performing belief propagation on a modified graph called a junction tree. The graph is called a tree because it branches into different sections of data; nodes of variables are the branches. The basic premise is to eliminate cycles by clustering them into single nodes. Multiple extensive classes of queries can be compiled at the same time into larger structures of data. There are different algorithms to meet specific needs and for what needs to be calculated. Inference algorithms gather new developments in the data and calculate it based on the new information provided. == Junction tree algorithm == === Hugin algorithm === If the graph is directed then moralize it to make it un-directed. Introduce the evidence. Triangulate the graph to make it chordal. Construct a junction tree from the triangulated graph (we will call the vertices of the junction tree "supernodes"). Propagate the probabilities along the junction tree (via belief propagation) Note that this last step is inefficient for graphs of large treewidth. Computing the messages to pass between supernodes involves doing exact marginalization over the variables in both supernodes. Performing this algorithm for a graph with treewidth k will thus have at least one computation which takes time exponential in k. It is a message passing algorithm. The Hugin algorithm takes fewer computations to find a solution compared to Shafer-Shenoy. === Shafer-Shenoy algorithm === Computed recursively Multiple recursions of the Shafer-Shenoy algorithm results in Hugin algorithm Found by the message passing equation Separator potentials are not stored The Shafer-Shenoy algorithm is the sum product of a junction tree. It is used because it runs programs and queries more efficiently than the Hugin algorithm. The algorithm makes calculations for conditionals for belief functions possible. Joint distributions are needed to make local computations happen. === Underlying theory === The first step concerns only Bayesian networks, and is a procedure to turn a directed graph into an undirected one. We do this because it allows for the universal applicability of the algorithm, regardless of direction. The second step is setting variables to their observed value. This is usually needed when we want to calculate conditional probabilities, so we fix the value of the random variables we condition on. Those variables are also said to be clamped to their particular value. The third step is to ensure that graphs are made chordal if they aren't already chordal. This is the first essential step of the algorithm. It makes use of the following theorem: Theorem: For an undirected graph, G, the following properties are equivalent: Graph G is triangulated. The clique graph of G has a junction tree. There is an elimination ordering for G that does not lead to any added edges. Thus, by triangulating a graph, we make sure that the corresponding junction tree exists. A usual way to do this, is to decide an elimination order for its nodes, and then run the Variable elimination algorithm. The variable elimination algorithm states that the algorithm must be run each time there is a different query. This will result to adding more edges to the initial graph, in such a way that the output will be a chordal graph. All chordal graphs have a junction tree. The next step is to construct the junction tree. To do so, we use the graph from the previous step, and form its corresponding clique graph. Now the next theorem gives us a way to find a junction tree: Theorem: Given a triangulated graph, weight the edges of the clique graph by their cardinality, |A∩B|, of the intersection of the adjacent cliques A and B. Then any maximum-weight spanning tree of the clique graph is a junction tree. So, to construct a junction tree we just have to extract a maximum weight spanning tree out of the clique graph. This can be efficiently done by, for example, modifying Kruskal's algorithm. The last step is to apply belief propagation to the obtained junction tree. Usage: A junction tree graph is used to visualize the probabilities of the problem. The tree can become a binary tree to form the actual building of the tree. A specific use could be found in auto encoders, which combine the graph and a passing network on a large scale automatically. === Inference Algorithms === Loopy belief propagation: A different method of interpreting complex graphs. The loopy belief propagation is used when an approximate solution is needed instead of the exact solution. It is an approximate inference. Cutset conditioning: Used with smaller sets of variables. Cutset conditioning allows for simpler graphs that are easier to read but are not exact.
Inauthentic text
An inauthentic text is a computer-generated expository document meant to appear as genuine, but which is actually meaningless. Frequently they are created in order to be intermixed with genuine documents and thus manipulate the results of search engines, as with Spam blogs. They are also carried along in email in order to fool spam filters by giving the spam the superficial characteristics of legitimate text. Sometimes nonsensical documents are created with computer assistance for humorous effect, as with Dissociated press or Flarf poetry. They have also been used to challenge the veracity of a publication—MIT students submitted papers generated by a computer program called SCIgen to a conference, where they were initially accepted. This led the students to claim that the bar for submissions was too low. With the amount of computer generated text outpacing the ability of people to humans to curate it, there needs some means of distinguishing between the two. Yet automated approaches to determining absolutely whether a text is authentic or not face intrinsic challenges of semantics. Noam Chomsky coined the phrase "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" giving an example of grammatically correct, but semantically incoherent sentence; some will point out that in certain contexts one could give this sentence (or any phrase) meaning. The first group to use the expression in this regard can be found below from Indiana University. Their work explains in detail an attempt to detect inauthentic texts and identify pernicious problems of inauthentic texts in cyberspace. The site has a means of submitting text that assesses, based on supervised learning, whether a corpus is inauthentic or not. Many users have submitted incorrect types of data and have correspondingly commented on the scores. This application is meant for a specific kind of data; therefore, submitting, say, an email, will not return a meaningful score.
Amazon Rekognition
Amazon Rekognition is a cloud-based software as a service (SaaS) computer vision platform that was launched in 2016. It has been sold to, and used by, a number of United States government agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Orlando, Florida police, as well as private entities. == Capabilities == Rekognition provides a number of computer vision capabilities, which can be divided into two categories: Algorithms that are pre-trained on data collected by Amazon or its partners, and algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset. As of July 2019, Rekognition provides the following computer vision capabilities. === Pre-trained algorithms === Celebrity recognition in images Facial attribute detection in images, including gender, age range, emotions (e.g. happy, calm, disgusted), whether the face has a beard or mustache, whether the face has eyeglasses or sunglasses, whether the eyes are open, whether the mouth is open, whether the person is smiling, and the location of several markers such as the pupils and jaw line. People Pathing enables tracking of people through a video. An advertised use-case of this capability is to track sports players for post-game analysis. Text detection and classification in images Unsafe visual content detection === Algorithms that a user can train on a custom dataset === SearchFaces enables users to import a database of images with pre-labeled faces, to train a machine learning model on this database, and to expose the model as a cloud service with an API. Then, the user can post new images to the API and receive information about the faces in the image. The API can be used to expose a number of capabilities, including identifying faces of known people, comparing faces, and finding similar faces in a database. Face-based user verification == History and use == === 2017 === In late 2017, the Washington County, Oregon Sheriff's Office began using Rekognition to identify suspects' faces. Rekognition was marketed as a general-purpose computer vision tool, and an engineer working for Washington County decided to use the tool for facial analysis of suspects. Rekognition was offered to the department for free, and Washington County became the first US law enforcement agency known to use Rekognition. In 2018, the agency logged over 1,000 facial searches. The county, according to the Washington Post, by 2019 was paying about $7 a month for all of its searches. The relationship was unknown to the public until May 2018. In 2018, Rekognition was also used to help identify celebrities during a royal wedding telecast. === 2018 === In April 2018, it was reported that FamilySearch was using Rekognition to enable their users to "see which of their ancestors they most resemble based on family photographs". In early 2018, the FBI also began using it as a pilot program for analyzing video surveillance. In May 2018, it was reported by the ACLU that Orlando, Florida was running a pilot using Rekognition for facial analysis in law enforcement, with that pilot ending in July 2019. After the report, on June 22, 2018, Gizmodo reported that Amazon workers had written a letter to CEO Jeff Bezos requesting he cease selling Rekognition to US law enforcement, particularly ICE and Homeland Security. A letter was also sent to Bezos by the ACLU. On June 26, 2018, it was reported that the Orlando police force had ceased using Rekognition after their trial contract expired, reserving the right to use it in the future. The Orlando Police Department said that they had "never gotten to the point to test images" due to old infrastructure and low bandwidth. In July 2018, the ACLU released a test showing that Rekognition had falsely matched 28 members of Congress with mugshot photos, particularly Congresspeople of color. 25 House members afterwards sent a letter to Bezos, expressing concern about Rekognition. Amazon responded saying the Rekognition test had generated 80 percent confidence, while it recommended law enforcement only use matches rated at 99 percent confidence. The Washington Post states that Oregon instead has officers pick a "best of five" result, instead of adhering to the recommendation. In September 2018, it was reported that Mapillary was using Rekognition to read the text on parking signs (e.g. no stopping, no parking, or specific parking hours) in cities. In October 2018, it was reported that Amazon had earlier that year pitched Rekognition to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Amazon defended government use of Rekognition. On December 1, 2018, it was reported that 8 Democratic lawmakers had said in a letter that Amazon had "failed to provide sufficient answers" about Rekognition, writing that they had "serious concerns that this type of product has significant accuracy issues, places disproportionate burdens on communities of color, and could stifle Americans' willingness to exercise their First Amendment rights in public." === 2019 === In January 2019, MIT researchers published a peer-reviewed study asserting that Rekognition had more difficulty in identifying dark-skinned females than competitors such as IBM and Microsoft. In the study, Rekognition misidentified darker-skinned women as men 31% of the time, but made no mistakes for light-skinned men. Amazon called the report "misinterpreted results" of the research with an improper "default confidence threshold." In January 2019, Amazon's shareholders "urged Amazon to stop selling Rekognition software to law enforcement agencies." Amazon in response defended its use of Rekognition, but supported new federal oversight and guidelines to "make sure facial recognition technology cannot be used to discriminate." In February 2019, it was reported that Amazon was collaborating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on developing standardized tests to improve accuracy and remove bias with facial recognition. In March 2019, an open letter regarding Rekognition was sent by a group of prominent AI researchers to Amazon, criticizing its sale to law enforcement with around 50 signatures. In April 2019, Amazon was told by the Securities and Exchange Commission that they had to vote on two shareholder proposals seeking to limit Rekognition. Amazon argued that the proposals were an "insignificant public policy issue for the Company" not related to Amazon's ordinary business, but their appeal was denied. The vote was set for May. The first proposal was tabled by shareholders. On May 24, 2019, 2.4% of shareholders voted to stop selling Rekognition to government agencies, while a second proposal calling for a study into Rekognition and civil rights had 27.5% support. In August 2019, the ACLU again used Rekognition on members of government, with 26 of 120 lawmakers in California flagged as matches to mugshots. Amazon stated the ACLU was "misusing" the software in the tests, by not dismissing results that did not meet Amazon's recommended accuracy threshold of 99%. By August 2019, there had been protests against ICE's use of Rekognition to surveil immigrants. In March 2019, Amazon announced a Rekognition update that would improve emotional detection, and in August 2019, "fear" was added to emotions that Rekognition could detect. === 2020 === In June 2020, Amazon announced it was implementing a one-year moratorium on police use of Rekognition, in response to the George Floyd protests. === 2024 === The Department of Justice disclosed that the FBI is initiating the use of Amazon Rekognition. The DOJ's AI inventory revealed the FBI's "Project Tyr" aims to customize Rekognition to identify nudity, weapons, explosives, and other information from lawfully acquired media. === 2025 === In late 2025, the New York Times reported that scientist, Dr. Jürgen Matthäus, retired from as the head of research at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., used Amazon Rekognition to identify the shooter in the Holocaust photograph known as The Last Jew in Vinnitsa "with more than 99 percent certainty" — as Jakobus Onnen (1906–1943), a teacher from Tichelwarf near Weener in East Frisia who had been a member of the SS since 1934 and was later killed in action near Zhitomir in 1943. The photographer and victim remain unidentified. == Controversy regarding facial analysis == === Racial and gender bias === In 2018, MIT researchers Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru published a study called Gender Shades. In this study, a set of images was collected, and faces in the images were labeled with face position, gender, and skin tone information. The images were run through SaaS facial recognition platforms from Face++, IBM, and Microsoft. In all three of these platforms, the classifiers performed best on male faces (with error rates on female faces being 8.1% to 20.6% higher than error rates on male faces), and they performed worst on dark female faces (with error rates ranging from 20.8% to 30.4%). The authors hypothesized that this discr