The DARPA AlphaDogfight was a 2019–2020 DARPA program that pitted computers using F-16 flight simulators against one another. The computers were managed by eight teams of humans, who competed in a single-round elimination for the right to battle a skilled human dogfighter. Heron Systems corporation wrote a deep reinforcement learning software tool that bested the human pilot by a score of 5–0. The tournament program was managed by the Applied Physics Laboratory. The trials took place in October 2019 and January 2020 while the finals were held in August 2020. In 2024 a successor version of the program was tested with in the physical world with the X-62A.
Aporia (company)
Aporia is a machine learning observability platform based in Tel Aviv, Israel. The company has a US office located in San Jose, California. Aporia has developed software for monitoring and controlling undetected defects and failures used by other companies to detect and report anomalies, and warn in the early stages of faults. == History == Aporia was founded in 2019 by Liran Hason and Alon Gubkin. In April 2021, the company raised a $5 million seed round for its monitoring platform for ML models. In February 2022, the company closed a Series A round of $25 million for its ML observability platform. Aporia was named by Forbes as the Next Billion-Dollar Company in June 2022. In November, the company partnered with ClearML, an MLOPs platform, to improve ML pipeline optimization. In January 2023, Aporia launched Direct Data Connectors, a novel technology allowing organizations to monitor their ML models in minutes (previously the process of integrating ML monitoring into a customer’s cloud environment took weeks or more.) DDC (Direct Data Connectors) enables users to connect Aporia to their preferred data source and monitor all of their data at once, without data sampling or data duplication (which is a huge security risk for major organizations. In April 2023, Aporia announced the company partnered with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to provide more reliable ML observability to AWS consumers by deploying Aporia's architecture to their AWS environment, this will allow customers to monitor their models in production regardless of platform.
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
Copyright
A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States and fair dealing doctrine in the United Kingdom. Some jurisdictions require "fixing" copyrighted works in a tangible form. It is often shared among multiple authors, each of whom holds a set of rights to use or license the work, and who are commonly referred to as rights holders. These rights normally include reproduction, control over derivative works, distribution, public performance, and moral rights such as attribution. Copyrights can be granted by public law and are in that case considered "territorial rights". This means that copyrights granted by the law of a certain state do not extend beyond the territory of that specific jurisdiction. Copyrights of this type vary by country; many countries, and sometimes a large group of countries, have made agreements with other countries on procedures applicable when works "cross" national borders or national rights are inconsistent. Typically, the public law duration of a copyright expires 50 to 100 years after the creator dies, depending on the jurisdiction. Some countries require certain copyright formalities to establishing copyright, others recognize copyright in any completed work, without a formal registration. When the copyright of a work expires, it enters the public domain. == History == === Background === The concept of copyright developed after the printing press came into use in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. It was associated with a common law and rooted in the civil law system. The printing press made it much cheaper to produce works, but as there was initially no copyright law, anyone could buy or rent a press and print any text. Popular new works were immediately re-set and re-published by competitors, so printers needed a constant stream of new material. Fees paid to authors for new works were high and significantly supplemented the incomes of many academics. Printing brought profound social changes. The rise in literacy across Europe led to a dramatic increase in the demand for reading matter. Prices of reprints were low, so publications could be bought by poorer people, creating a mass audience. In German-language markets before the advent of copyright, technical materials, like academic papers and handbooks, were inexpensive and widely available; it has been suggested this contributed to Germany's industrial and economic success. === Conception === The concept of copyright first developed in England. In reaction to the printing of "scandalous books and pamphlets", the English Parliament passed the Licensing of the Press Act 1662, which required all intended publications to be registered with the government-approved Stationers' Company, giving the Stationers the right to regulate what material could be printed. The Statute of Anne, enacted in 1710 in England and Scotland, provided the first legislation to protect copyrights (but not authors' rights). The Copyright Act 1814 extended more rights for authors but did not protect British publications from being reprinted in the US. The Berne International Copyright Convention of 1886 finally provided protection for authors among the countries who signed the agreement, although the US did not join the Berne Convention until 1989. In the US, the Constitution grants Congress the right to establish copyright and patent laws. Shortly after the Constitution was passed, Congress enacted the Copyright Act of 1790, modeling it after the Statute of Anne. While the national law protected authors' published works, authority was granted to the states to protect authors' unpublished works. The most recent major overhaul of copyright in the US, the Copyright Act of 1976, extended federal copyright to works as soon as they are created and "fixed", without requiring publication or registration. State law continues to apply to unpublished works that are not otherwise copyrighted by federal law. This act also changed the calculation of copyright term from a fixed term (then a maximum of fifty-six years) to "life of the author plus 50 years". These changes brought the US closer to conformity with the Berne Convention, and in 1989 the United States further revised its copyright law and joined the Berne Convention officially. Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized. Different cultural attitudes, social organizations, economic models and legal frameworks are seen to account for why copyright emerged in Europe and not, for example, in Asia. In the Middle Ages in Europe, there was generally a lack of any concept of literary property due to the general relations of production, the specific organization of literary production and the role of culture in society. The latter refers to the tendency of oral societies, such as that of Europe in the medieval period, to view knowledge as the product and expression of the collective, rather than to see it as individual property. However, with copyright laws, intellectual production comes to be seen as a product of an individual, with attendant rights. The most significant point is that patent and copyright laws support the expansion of the range of creative human activities that can be commodified. This parallels the ways in which capitalism led to the commodification of many aspects of social life that earlier had no monetary or economic value perse. Copyright has developed into a concept that has a significant effect on nearly every modern industry, including not just literary work, but also forms of creative work such as sound recordings, films, photographs, software, and architecture. === National copyrights === Often seen as the first real copyright law, the 1709 British Statute of Anne gave authors and the publishers to whom they did chose to license their works, the right to publish the author's creations for a fixed period, after which the copyright expired. It was "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or the Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned." The act also alluded to individual rights of the artist. It began: "Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing ... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors ... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:". A right to benefit financially from the work is articulated, and court rulings and legislation have recognized a right to control the work, such as ensuring that the integrity of it is preserved. An irrevocable right to be recognized as the work's creator appears in some countries' copyright laws. The Copyright Clause of the United States, Constitution (1787) authorized copyright legislation: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as a whole. A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to their heirs. Yet scholars like Lawrence Lessig have argued that copyright terms have been extended beyond the scope imagined by the Framers. Lessig refers to the Copyright Clause as the "Progress Clause" to emphasize the social dimension of intellectual property rights. The original length of copyright in the United States was 14 years, and it had to be explicitly applied for. If the author wished, they could apply for a second 14‑year monopoly grant, but after that the work entered the public domain, so it could be used and built upon by others. === Continental law === In many jurisdictions of the European continent, comparable legal concepts to copyright did exist from the 16th century on but did change under Napoleonic rule into another legal concept: authors' rights or creator's right laws, from French: droits d'auteur and German Urheberrecht. In many modern-day publications the terms copyright and authors' rights are being mixed, or used as translations, but in a juridical sense the legal concepts do essentially differ. Authors' rights are, generally speaking,
Data set (IBM mainframe)
In the context of IBM mainframe computers in the IBM System/360 line and its successors, a data set (IBM preferred) or dataset is a computer file having a record organization. Use of this term began with, e.g., DOS/360 and OS/360, and is still used by their successors, including the current VSE and z/OS. Documentation for these systems historically preferred this term rather than file. A data set is typically stored on a direct access storage device (DASD) or magnetic tape, however unit record devices, such as punch card readers, card punches, line printers and page printers can provide input/output (I/O) for a data set (file). Data sets are not unstructured streams of bytes, but rather are organized in various logical record and block structures determined by the DSORG (data set organization), RECFM (record format), and other parameters. These parameters are specified at the time of the data set allocation (creation), for example with Job Control Language DD statements. Within a running program they are stored in the Data Control Block (DCB) or Access Control Block (ACB), which are data structures used to access data sets using access methods. Records in a data set may be fixed, variable, or “undefined” length. == Data set organization == For OS/360, the DCB's DSORG parameter specifies how the data set is organized. It may be CQ Queued Telecommunications Access Method (QTAM) in Message Control Program (MCP) CX Communications line group DA Basic Direct Access Method (BDAM) GS Graphics device for Graphics Access Method(GAM) IS Indexed Sequential Access Method (ISAM) MQ QTAM message queue in application PO Partitioned Organization PS Physical Sequential among others. Data sets on tape may only be DSORG=PS. The choice of organization depends on how the data is to be accessed, and in particular, how it is to be updated. Programmers utilize various access methods (such as QSAM or VSAM) in programs for reading and writing data sets. Access method depends on the given data set organization. == Record format (RECFM) == Regardless of organization, the physical structure of each record is essentially the same, and is uniform throughout the data set. This is specified in the DCB RECFM parameter. RECFM=F means that the records are of fixed length, specified via the LRECL parameter. RECFM=V specifies a variable-length record. V records when stored on media are prefixed by a Record Descriptor Word (RDW) containing the integer length of the record in bytes and flag bits. With RECFM=FB and RECFM=VB, multiple logical records are grouped together into a single physical block on tape or DASD. FB and VB are fixed-blocked, and variable-blocked, respectively. RECFM=U (undefined) is also variable length, but the length of the record is determined by the length of the block rather than by a control field. The BLKSIZE parameter specifies the maximum length of the block. RECFM=FBS could be also specified, meaning fixed-blocked standard, meaning all the blocks except the last one were required to be in full BLKSIZE length. RECFM=VBS, or variable-blocked spanned, means a logical record could be spanned across two or more blocks, with flags in the RDW indicating whether a record segment is continued into the next block and/or was continued from the previous one. This mechanism eliminates the need for using any "delimiter" byte value to separate records. Thus data can be of any type, including binary integers, floating-point, or characters, without introducing a false end-of-record condition. The data set is an abstraction of a collection of records, in contrast to files as unstructured streams of bytes. == Partitioned data set == A partitioned data set (PDS) is a data set containing multiple members, each of which holds a separate sub-data set, similar to a directory in other types of file systems. This type of data set is often used to hold load modules (old format bound executable programs), source program libraries (especially Assembler macro definitions), ISPF screen definitions, and Job Control Language. A PDS may be compared to a Zip file or COM Structured Storage. A Partitioned Data Set can only be allocated on a single volume and have a maximum size of 65,535 tracks. Besides members, a PDS contains also a directory. Each member can be accessed indirectly via the directory structure. Once a member is located, the data stored in that member are handled in the same manner as a PS (sequential) data set. Whenever a member is deleted, the space it occupied is unusable for storing other data. Likewise, if a member is re-written, it is stored in a new spot at the back of the PDS and leaves wasted “dead” space in the middle. The only way to recover “dead” space is to perform file compression. Compression, which is done using the IEBCOPY utility, moves all members to the front of the data space and leaves free usable space at the back. (Note that in modern parlance, this kind of operation might be called defragmentation or garbage collection; data compression nowadays refers to a different, more complicated concept.) PDS files can only reside on DASD, not on magnetic tape, in order to use the directory structure to access individual members. Partitioned data sets are most often used for storing multiple job control language files, utility control statements, and executable modules. An improvement of this scheme is a Partitioned Data Set Extended (PDSE or PDS/E, sometimes just libraries) introduced with DFSMSdfp for MVS/XA and MVS/ESA systems. A PDS/E library can store program objects or other types of members, but not both. BPAM cannot process a PDS/E containing program objects. PDS/E structure is similar to PDS and is used to store the same types of data. However, PDS/E files have a better directory structure which does not require pre-allocation of directory blocks when the PDS/E is defined (and therefore does not run out of directory blocks if not enough were specified). Also, PDS/E automatically stores members in such a way that compression operation is not needed to reclaim "dead" space. PDS/E files can only reside on DASD in order to use the directory structure to access individual members. == Generation Data Group == A Generation Data Group (GDG) is a group of non-VSAM data sets that are successive generations of historically-related data stored on an IBM mainframe (running OS/360 and its successors or DOS/360 and its successors). A GDG is usually cataloged. An individual member of the GDG collection is called a "Generation Data Set." The latter may be identified by an absolute number, ACCTG.OURGDG(1234), or a relative number: (-1) for the previous generation, (0) for the current one, and (+1) the next generation. A GDG specifies how many generations of a data set are to be kept and at what age a generation will be deleted. Whenever a new generation is created, the system checks whether one or more obsolete generations are to be deleted. The purpose of GDGs is to automate archival, using the command language JCL, the data set name given is generic. When DSN appears, the GDG data set appears along with the history number, where (0) is the most recent version (-1), (-2), ... are previous generations (+1) a new generation (see DD) Another use of GDGs is to be able to address all generations simultaneously within a JCL script without having to know the number of currently available generations. To do this, you have to omit the parentheses and the generation number in the JCL when specifying the dataset. === GDG JCL & features === Generation Data Groups are defined using either the BLDG statement of the IEHPROGM utility or the DEFINE GENERATIONGROUP statement of the newer IDCAMS utility, which allows setting various parameters. LIMIT(10) would limit the number of generations limit to 10. SCRATCH FOR (91) would retain each member, up to the limited#generations, at least 91 days. IDCAMS can also delete (and optionally uncatalog) a GDG. ==== Example ==== Creation of a standard GDG for five safety scopes, each at least 35 days old: Delete a standard GDG:
XRX (web application architecture)
In software development XRX is a web application architecture based on XForms, REST and XQuery. XRX applications store data on both the web client and on the web server in XML format and do not require a translation between data formats. XRX is considered a simple and elegant application architecture due to the minimal number of translations needed to transport data between client and server systems. The XRX architecture is also tightly coupled to W3C standards (CSS, XHTML 2.0, XPath, XML Schema) to ensure XRX applications will be robust in the future. Because XRX applications leverage modern declarative languages on the client and functional languages on the server they are designed to empower non-developers who are not familiar with traditional imperative languages such as JavaScript, Java or .Net. == Overview of XRX == XRX is a zero translation application architecture that uses XML to store data in the client web browser, on the application server and in the database server. It is because each of these layers uses XML as the same structural data model that XRX applications do not have to translate data structures to and from both object and relational data structures. Because of the lack of need for translation, XRX is considered to have a clean and elegant design. The XRX web application architecture allows developers to focus on the business problem and not the translation problem. XRX benefits from several advances in software technology: === Client Architectural Features === A model–view–controller (MVC) architecture that separates the data from its presentation and business logic. A single element (xf:submission) for all server submissions. This replaces much of the JavaScript code required in most AJAX applications. An advanced event model (XML Events) consistent with W3C standards that frees applications from having to deal with vendor-specific and browser-specific event handling. A Dependency graph that is used to store the dependency structure of the client controllers. This frees the developer from having to manually update either the model or the views when data changes in an application. This allows spreadsheet-like applications to be created on the client with very little effort. A declarative programming style that allows most client XForms applications to be created using a small set of approximately 20 elements. This allows rich client applications to be created without knowledge of JavaScript or other procedural scripting languages. An easy-to-extend system for creating new user interface controls using the EXtensible Bindings Language. This allows developers to add new controls at any time without fear of incompatibilities with W3C standards. === Server Architecture Features === Many native XML databases have built-in REST interfaces making each XQuery inherently a RESTful web service. A functional programming model that promotes side-effect free systems that are easier to debug and easier to run on multiple processors. An easy-to-extend system using XQuery function and modules. === Both Client and Server === Both XRX client and server components support a wide range of XML related standards such as XPath, XML Schema and XML Namespaces. Consistent use of REST interfaces to exchange data between the client and server for all transfers of data including as-you-type data checking and suggest functions. Consistent integration of W3C standards including use of XPath and XML Schema data types. A large library of standard of functions used on both the client and server. == Overall Benefits of XRX == One of the principal benefits of the XRX architecture is that it avoids the requirement to "shred" complex data structures into relational structures and then reconstitute the data back into structures when a record is edited on the client. Another benefits of the XRX Web application architecture is that it avoids most of the problems around the object-relational impedance mismatch. Another advantage is that the client developer does not have to learn JavaScript on the client. == Comparison with Traditional Object/Relational Web Application Architectures == Many traditional web application architectures created in the late 1990 were based on middle object tiers and persistence layers that used tabular data streams and relational database systems. Because each of these layers used different structures to store the models the systems required much additional complexity to translate between layers. == History of XRX == Early examples of using a zero-translation architecture in multi-tier systems can be traced back to the rise of object-oriented databases in the 1990s. See OODBMS History Mark Birbeck suggested that the combination of XForms, XQuery with REST interfaces between the two had many advantages in a meeting to the UK XML User Group in September 2006 . His presentation was one of the first to specifically suggest that the combination of three technologies: XForms and XQuery with REST interfaces would have surprisingly beneficial effects. Mark termed this process "Skimming" but that term did not seem to be contagious. Erik Bruchez of Orbeon spoke at the XML 2007 conference on Boston in December 2007. In his presentation "XForms and the eXist XML database: a perfect couple", Bruchez showed that many people were discovering synergistic benefits of XForms on the client and XQuery on the server. The label for XRX was suggested by a blog posting by Dan McCreary on December 14, 2007. It was in this article that Dan suggested the need for a contagious meme for the ideas behind the XRX architecture. == Generalizations of XRX == Although XRX was originally intended to connote the use of XForms on the client, REST as an interface and XQuery on the server, other proponents of the symmetrical use of XML on the client and server have generalized the term to encompass any XML-centric web client and any server that can store and query XML documents. This use of XRX is generally referred to as "shallow XRX". These generalizations do benefit from a simplified zero-translation architecture but many do not benefit from REST interfaces, XPath for consistent data selection, declarative systems in the client, and functional languages on the server (one of the key aspects of XRX). Use of all three technologies (XForms, REST and XQuery) is referred to as "deep XRX". Although XRX architecture is centred on XForms and XQuery, it does not preclude the use of other technologies that manipulate XML natively, such as XSLT, XProc, and XSL-FO.
HTTP Strict Transport Security
HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is a policy mechanism that helps to protect websites against man-in-the-middle attacks such as protocol downgrade attacks and cookie hijacking. It allows web servers to declare that web browsers (or other complying user agents) should automatically interact with it using only HTTPS connections, which provide Transport Layer Security (TLS/SSL), unlike the insecure HTTP used alone. HSTS is an IETF standards track protocol and is specified in RFC 6797. The HSTS Policy is communicated by the server to the user agent via an HTTP response header field named Strict-Transport-Security. HSTS Policy specifies a period of time during which the user agent should only access the server in a secure fashion. Websites using HSTS often do not accept clear text HTTP, either by rejecting connections over HTTP or systematically redirecting users to HTTPS (though this is not required by the specification). The consequence of this is that a user-agent not capable of doing TLS will not be able to connect to the site. The protection normally only applies after a user has visited the site at least once, relying on the principle of "trust on first use". The way this protection works is that when a user entering or selecting an HTTP (not HTTPS) URL to the site, the client, such as a Web browser, will automatically upgrade to HTTPS without making an HTTP request, thereby preventing any HTTP man-in-the-middle attack from occurring. To counteract this problem, an HSTS preload list maintained by Google Chrome and used by other major web browsers is maintained. If a domain is on this list, the browser skips the initial request and encrypts all communication immediately. Additional domains can be registered at no cost. == Specification history == The HSTS specification was published as RFC 6797 on 19 November 2012 after being approved on 2 October 2012 by the IESG for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC. The authors originally submitted it as an Internet Draft on 17 June 2010. With the conversion to an Internet Draft, the specification name was altered from "Strict Transport Security" (STS) to "HTTP Strict Transport Security", because the specification applies only to HTTP. The HTTP response header field defined in the HSTS specification however remains named "Strict-Transport-Security". The last so-called "community version" of the then-named "STS" specification was published on 18 December 2009, with revisions based on community feedback. The original draft specification by Jeff Hodges from PayPal, Collin Jackson, and Adam Barth was published on 18 September 2009. The HSTS specification is based on original work by Jackson and Barth as described in their paper "ForceHTTPS: Protecting High-Security Web Sites from Network Attacks". Additionally, HSTS is the realization of one facet of an overall vision for improving web security, put forward by Jeff Hodges and Andy Steingruebl in their 2010 paper The Need for Coherent Web Security Policy Framework(s). == HSTS mechanism overview == A server implements an HSTS policy by supplying a header over an HTTPS connection (HSTS headers over HTTP are ignored). For example, a server could send a header such that future requests to the domain for the next year (max-age is specified in seconds; 31,536,000 is equal to one non-leap year) use only HTTPS: Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000. When a web application issues HSTS Policy to user agents, conformant user agents behave as follows: Automatically turn any insecure links referencing the web application into secure links (e.g. http://example.com/some/page/ will be modified to https://example.com/some/page/ before accessing the server). If the security of the connection cannot be ensured (e.g. the server's TLS certificate is not trusted), the user agent must terminate the connection and should not allow the user to access the web application. This helps protect web application users against some passive (eavesdropping) and active network attacks. A man-in-the-middle attacker has a greatly reduced ability to intercept requests and responses between a user and a web application server while the user's browser has HSTS Policy in effect for that web application. == Applicability == The most important security vulnerability that HSTS can fix is SSL-stripping man-in-the-middle attacks, first publicly introduced by Moxie Marlinspike in his 2009 BlackHat Federal talk "New Tricks For Defeating SSL In Practice". The SSL (and TLS) stripping attack works by transparently converting a secure HTTPS connection into a plain HTTP connection. The user can see that the connection is insecure, but crucially there is no way of knowing whether the connection should be secure. At the time of Marlinspike's talk, many websites did not use TLS/SSL, therefore there was no way of knowing (without prior knowledge) whether the use of plain HTTP was due to an attack, or simply because the website had not implemented TLS/SSL. Additionally, no warnings are presented to the user during the downgrade process, making the attack fairly subtle to all but the most vigilant. Marlinspike's sslstrip tool, presented at Black Hat DC 2009, fully automates the attack. HSTS addresses this problem by informing the browser that connections to the site should always use TLS/SSL. The HSTS header can be stripped by the attacker if this is the user's first visit. Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Edge attempt to limit this problem by including a "pre-loaded" list of HSTS sites. Unfortunately this solution cannot scale to include all websites on the internet. See limitations, below. HSTS can also help to prevent having one's cookie-based website login credentials stolen by widely available tools such as Firesheep. Because HSTS is time limited, it is sensitive to attacks involving shifting the victim's computer time e.g. using false NTP packets. == Limitations == The initial request remains unprotected from active attacks if it uses an insecure protocol such as plain HTTP or if the URI for the initial request was obtained over an insecure channel. The same applies to the first request after the activity period specified in the advertised HSTS Policy max-age (sites should set a period of several days or months depending on user activity and behavior). === Solutions with preload list === Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, and Internet Explorer/Microsoft Edge address this limitation by implementing a "HSTS preloaded list", which is a list that contains known sites supporting HSTS. This list is distributed with the browser so that it uses HTTPS for the initial request to the listed sites as well. As previously mentioned, these pre-loaded lists cannot scale to cover the entire Web. A potential solution might be achieved by using DNS records to declare HSTS Policy, and accessing them securely via DNSSEC, optionally with certificate fingerprints to ensure validity (which requires running a validating resolver to avoid last mile issues). Junade Ali has noted that HSTS is ineffective against the use of false domains; by using DNS-based attacks, it is possible for a man-in-the-middle interceptor to serve traffic from an artificial domain which is not on the HSTS Preload list, this can be made possible by DNS Spoofing Attacks, or simply a domain name that misleadingly resembles the real domain name such as www.example.org instead of www.example.com. Even with an HSTS preloaded list, HSTS cannot prevent advanced attacks against TLS itself, such as the BEAST or CRIME attacks introduced by Juliano Rizzo and Thai Duong. Attacks against TLS itself are orthogonal to HSTS policy enforcement. Neither can it protect against attacks on the server - if someone compromises it, it will happily serve any content over TLS. === Privacy issues === HSTS can be used to near-indelibly tag visiting browsers with recoverable identifying data (supercookies) which can persist in and out of browser "incognito" privacy modes. By creating a web page that makes multiple HTTP requests to selected domains, for example, if twenty browser requests to twenty different domains are used, theoretically over one million visitors can be distinguished (220) due to the resulting requests arriving via HTTP vs. HTTPS; the latter being the previously recorded binary "bits" established earlier via HSTS headers. == Browser support == Chromium and Google Chrome since version 4.0.211.0 Firefox since version 4; with Firefox 17, Mozilla integrates a list of websites supporting HSTS. Opera since version 12 Safari since OS X Mavericks (version 10.9, late 2013) Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 8.1 and Windows 7 with KB3058515 installed (Released as a Windows Update in June 2015) Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 10 BlackBerry 10 Browser and WebView since BlackBerry OS 10.3.3. == Deployment best practices == Depending on the actual deployment there are certain threats (e.g. cookie injection attacks) t