JustWatch is a website that provides information on the availability of films and TV shows on various streaming platforms such as Netflix, HBO Max, Disney+, Hulu, Peacock, Fandango at Home, Apple TV, and Amazon Prime Video, among others. It is also available as a mobile application and smart TV application. JustWatch provides a search engine that allows users to discover which digital platforms host a particular movie or TV series. As of November 2023, JustWatch is available to users in 139 countries. == Features == JustWatch functions as a search engine by aggregating information about the online availability of films and TV series from video-on-demand streaming services. It aggregates information from more than 100 video content libraries, as well providing information about video resolution quality, pricing, and purchase or rental options. The website includes various filters for searching, including genre, price, release date, rating, and popularity. Users are also able to create lists of shows and movies and to share these lists with other users. == History == JustWatch GmbH is an international database company that is privately held and headquartered in Berlin, Germany. The company specializes in the online availability of movies and TV series. In addition to its user-facing website, the company also has an advertising-focused arm, JustWatch Media, that works with corporate clients, using data about what people watch that it gleans from user behavior to help entertainment companies tailor their marketing strategies. Its clients include Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, and Sony Pictures, among others. Development of the website began in 2014, and it was launched in the U.S. and Germany in February 2015. In 2018, the company received funding to improve databases within the European Union. In December 2019, the company acquired a rival streaming aggregation service, GoWatchIt, from Plexus Entertainment. JustWatch also used the acquisition to open its first New York office. In 2019, JustWatch had over 30 million users across 38 countries. By 2020, the company's streaming aggregation service was available in over 45 countries. By November 2023, it was available in 139 countries, and had over 40 million monthly users. === Founding === JustWatch was co-founded in 2013 by David Croyé, Cristoph Hoyer, Kevin Hiller, Dominik Raute, Ingke Weimert, and Michael Wilken. In a company blog post from February 2017, Croyé described the group of co-founders as all having previously "worked in leading roles at successful international tech-startups in Berlin." Croyé, who currently holds the title of CEO at JustWatch GmbH, had previously worked as the chief marketing officer at kaufDA, a European location-based mobile coupon and promotion service, and the background of other co-founders included time at the adtech company Trademob and the streaming site MyVideo. Startup capital for the website initially came from the founders themselves. Croyé in particular was able to reinvest funds he had obtained from the sale of kaufDA to Axel Springer, a European media company, in March 2011. Since 2015, the company has had at least one additional round of seed funding, with investors including venture capital groups CG Partners and STS Ventures.
Intel Threat Detection Technology
Intel Threat Detection Technology (TDT) is a CPU-level technology created by Intel in 2018 to enable host endpoint protections to use a CPU's low-level access to detect threats to a system. TDT consists of multiple components including Accelerated Memory Scanning, which uses the CPU's integrated GPU to scan memory, and Advanced Platform Telemetry, which uses processor-level activity monitoring to detect unusual activity. It is supported on sixth-generation or newer Intel Core CPUs and additional capabilities were added to the 11th generation Core processors. Intel TDT is integrated into several third-party anti-malware solutions including Microsoft Defender, Check Point Harmony Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon, and others. == Accelerated Memory Scanning == Accelerated Memory Scanning (also referred to as "Advanced Memory Scanning") uses the CPU's integrated GPU to scan memory for malicious code, instead of using the CPU directly. This improves system responsiveness during anti-malware scanning. and lowers power consumption. Features include pattern matching, using random forest decision trees, string extraction, entropy calculation, and Euclidean clustering. == Advanced Platform Telemetry == Advanced Platform Telemetry collects CPU-level telemetry to detect uncommon activity patterns which might be indicative of malware. The telemetry data is collected from the CPU performance monitoring unit (PMU) and doesn't require a large signature database to detect malware. Instead, it uses machine-learning based correlations to identify indicators of attack For example, Microsoft Defender is able to use TDT's Advanced Platform Telemetry features to detect processor usage patterns indicative of ransomware and cryptojacking with TDT so it can detect them.
Undeniable signature
An undeniable signature is a digital signature scheme which allows the signer to be selective to whom they allow to verify signatures. The scheme adds explicit signature repudiation, preventing a signer later refusing to verify a signature by omission; a situation that would devalue the signature in the eyes of the verifier. It was invented by David Chaum and Hans van Antwerpen in 1989. == Overview == In this scheme, a signer possessing a private key can publish a signature of a message. However, the signature reveals nothing to a recipient/verifier of the message and signature without taking part in either of two interactive protocols: Confirmation protocol, which confirms that a candidate is a valid signature of the message issued by the signer, identified by the public key. Disavowal protocol, which confirms that a candidate is not a valid signature of the message issued by the signer. The motivation for the scheme is to allow the signer to choose to whom signatures are verified. However, that the signer might claim the signature is invalid at any later point, by refusing to take part in verification, would devalue signatures to verifiers. The disavowal protocol distinguishes these cases removing the signer's plausible deniability. It is important that the confirmation and disavowal exchanges are not transferable. They achieve this by having the property of zero-knowledge; both parties can create transcripts of both confirmation and disavowal that are indistinguishable, to a third-party, of correct exchanges. The designated verifier signature scheme improves upon deniable signatures by allowing, for each signature, the interactive portion of the scheme to be offloaded onto another party, a designated verifier, reducing the burden on the signer. == Zero-knowledge protocol == The following protocol was suggested by David Chaum. A group, G, is chosen in which the discrete logarithm problem is intractable, and all operation in the scheme take place in this group. Commonly, this will be the finite cyclic group of order p contained in Z/nZ, with p being a large prime number; this group is equipped with the group operation of integer multiplication modulo n. An arbitrary primitive element (or generator), g, of G is chosen; computed powers of g then combine obeying fixed axioms. Alice generates a key pair, randomly chooses a private key, x, and then derives and publishes the public key, y = gx. === Message signing === Alice signs the message, m, by computing and publishing the signature, z = mx. === Confirmation (i.e., avowal) protocol === Bob wishes to verify the signature, z, of m by Alice under the key, y. Bob picks two random numbers: a and b, and uses them to blind the message, sending to Alice: c = magb. Alice picks a random number, q, uses it to blind, c, and then signing this using her private key, x, sending to Bob: s1 = cgq ands2 = s1x. Note that s1x = (cgq)x = (magb)xgqx = (mx)a(gx)b+q = zayb+q. Bob reveals a and b. Alice verifies that a and b are the correct blind values, then, if so, reveals q. Revealing these blinds makes the exchange zero knowledge. Bob verifies s1 = cgq, proving q has not been chosen dishonestly, and s2 = zayb+q, proving z is valid signature issued by Alice's key. Note that zayb+q = (mx)a(gx)b+q. Alice can cheat at step 2 by attempting to randomly guess s2. === Disavowal protocol === Alice wishes to convince Bob that z is not a valid signature of m under the key, gx; i.e., z ≠ mx. Alice and Bob have agreed an integer, k, which sets the computational burden on Alice and the likelihood that she should succeed by chance. Bob picks random values, s ∈ {0, 1, ..., k} and a, and sends: v1 = msga and v2 = zsya, where exponentiating by a is used to blind the sent values. Note that v2 = zsya = (mx)s(gx)a = v1x. Alice, using her private key, computes v1x and then the quotient, v1xv2−1 = (msga)x(zsgxa)−1 = msxz−s = (mxz−1)s. Thus, v1xv2−1 = 1, unless z ≠ mx. Alice then tests v1xv2−1 for equality against the values: (mxz−1)i for i ∈ {0, 1, …, k}; which are calculated by repeated multiplication of mxz−1 (rather than exponentiating for each i). If the test succeeds, Alice conjectures the relevant i to be s; otherwise, she conjectures random value. Where z = mx, (mxz−1)i = v1xv2−1 = 1 for all i, s is unrecoverable. Alice commits to i: she picks a random r and sends hash(r, i) to Bob. Bob reveals a. Alice confirms that a is the correct blind (i.e., v1 and v2 can be generated using it), then, if so, reveals r. Revealing these blinds makes the exchange zero knowledge. Bob checks hash(r, i) = hash(r, s), proving Alice knows s, hence z ≠ mx. If Alice attempts to cheat at step 3 by guessing s at random, the probability of succeeding is 1/(k + 1). So, if k = 1023 and the protocol is conducted ten times, her chances are 1 to 2100.
CrySyS Lab
CrySyS Lab (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈkriːsis]) is part of the Department of Telecommunications at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. The name is derived from "Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security", the full Hungarian name is CrySys Adat- és Rendszerbiztonság Laboratórium. == History == CrySyS Lab. was founded in 2003 by a group of security researchers at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Currently, it is located in the Infopark Budapest. The heads of the lab were Dr. István Vajda (2003–2010) and Dr. Levente Buttyán (2010-now). Since its establishment, the lab participated in several research and industry projects, including successful EU FP6 and FP7 projects (SeVeCom, a UbiSecSens and WSAN4CIP). == Research results == CrySyS Lab is recognized in research for its contribution to the area of security in wireless embedded systems. In this area, the members of the lab produced 5 books 4 book chapters 21 journal papers 47 conference papers 3 patents 2 Internet Draft The above publications had an impact factor of 30+ and obtained more than 7500 references. Several of these publications appeared in highly cited journals (e.g., IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Systems, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing). == Forensics analysis of malware incidents == The laboratory was involved in the forensic analysis of several high-profile targeted attacks. In October 2011, CrySyS Lab discovered the Duqu malware; pursued the analysis of the Duqu malware and as a result of the investigation, identified a dropper file with an MS 0-day kernel exploit inside; and finally released a new open-source Duqu Detector Toolkit to detect Duqu traces and running Duqu instances. In May 2012, the malware analysis team at CrySyS Lab participated in an international collaboration aiming at the analysis of an as yet unknown malware, which they call sKyWIper. At the same time Kaspersky Lab analyzed the malware Flame and Iran National CERT (MAHER) the malware Flamer. Later, they turned out to be the same. Other analysis published by CrySyS Lab include the password analysis of the Hungarian ISP, Elender, and a thorough Hungarian security survey of servers after the publications of the Kaminsky DNS attack.
Signals intelligence
Signals intelligence (SIGINT) is the act and field of intelligence-gathering by interception of signals, whether communications between people (communications intelligence—abbreviated to COMINT) or from electronic signals not directly used in communication (electronic intelligence—abbreviated to ELINT). As classified and sensitive information is usually encrypted, signals intelligence may necessarily involve cryptanalysis (to decipher the messages). Traffic analysis—the study of who is signaling to whom and in what quantity—is also used to integrate information, and it may complement cryptanalysis. == History == === Origins === Electronic interceptions appeared as early as 1900, during the Boer War of 1899–1902. The British Royal Navy had installed wireless sets produced by Marconi on board their ships in the late 1890s, and the British Army used some limited wireless signalling. The Boers captured some wireless sets and used them to make vital transmissions. Since the British were the only people transmitting at the time, the British did not need special interpretation of the signals that they were. The birth of signals intelligence in a modern sense dates from the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. As the Russian fleet prepared for conflict with Japan in 1904, the British ship HMS Diana stationed in the Suez Canal intercepted Russian naval wireless signals being sent out for the mobilization of the fleet, for the first time in history. === Development in World War I === Over the course of the First World War, a new method of signals intelligence reached maturity. Russia's failure to properly protect its communications fatally compromised the Russian Army's advance early in World War I and led to their disastrous defeat by the Germans under Ludendorff and Hindenburg at the Battle of Tannenberg. In 1918, French intercept personnel captured a message written in the new ADFGVX cipher, which was cryptanalyzed by Georges Painvin. This gave the Allies advance warning of the German 1918 Spring Offensive. The British in particular, built up great expertise in the newly emerging field of signals intelligence and codebreaking (synonymous with cryptanalysis). On the declaration of war, Britain cut all German undersea cables. This forced the Germans to communicate exclusively via either (A) a telegraph line that connected through the British network and thus could be tapped; or (B) through radio which the British could then intercept. Rear Admiral Henry Oliver appointed Sir Alfred Ewing to establish an interception and decryption service at the Admiralty; Room 40. An interception service known as 'Y' service, together with the post office and Marconi stations, grew rapidly to the point where the British could intercept almost all official German messages. The German fleet was in the habit each day of wirelessing the exact position of each ship and giving regular position reports when at sea. It was possible to build up a precise picture of the normal operation of the High Seas Fleet, to infer from the routes they chose where defensive minefields had been placed and where it was safe for ships to operate. Whenever a change to the normal pattern was seen, it immediately signalled that some operation was about to take place, and a warning could be given. Detailed information about submarine movements was also available. The use of radio-receiving equipment to pinpoint the location of any single transmitter was also developed during the war. Captain H.J. Round, working for Marconi, began carrying out experiments with direction-finding radio equipment for the army in France in 1915. By May 1915, the Admiralty was able to track German submarines crossing the North Sea. Some of these stations also acted as 'Y' stations to collect German messages, but a new section was created within Room 40 to plot the positions of ships from the directional reports. Room 40 played an important role in several naval engagements during the war, notably in detecting major German sorties into the North Sea. The battle of Dogger Bank was won in no small part due to the intercepts that allowed the Navy to position its ships in the right place. It played a vital role in subsequent naval clashes, including at the Battle of Jutland as the British fleet was sent out to intercept them. The direction-finding capability allowed for the tracking and location of German ships, submarines, and Zeppelins. The system was so successful that by the end of the war, over 80 million words, comprising the totality of German wireless transmission over the course of the war, had been intercepted by the operators of the Y-stations and decrypted. However, its most astonishing success was in decrypting the Zimmermann Telegram, a telegram from the German Foreign Office sent via Washington to its ambassador Heinrich von Eckardt in Mexico. === Postwar consolidation === With the importance of interception and decryption firmly established by the wartime experience, countries established permanent agencies dedicated to this task in the interwar period. In 1919, the British Cabinet's Secret Service Committee, chaired by Lord Curzon, recommended that a peace-time codebreaking agency should be created. The Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) was the first peace-time codebreaking agency, with a public function "to advise as to the security of codes and cyphers used by all Government departments and to assist in their provision", but also with a secret directive to "study the methods of cypher communications used by foreign powers". GC&CS officially formed on 1 November 1919, and produced its first decrypt on 19 October. By 1940, GC&CS was working on the diplomatic codes and ciphers of 26 countries, tackling over 150 diplomatic cryptosystems. The US Cipher Bureau was established in 1919 and achieved some success at the Washington Naval Conference in 1921, through cryptanalysis by Herbert Yardley. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson closed the US Cipher Bureau in 1929 with the words "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail." === World War II === The use of SIGINT had even greater implications during World War II. The combined effort of intercepts and cryptanalysis for the whole of the British forces in World War II came under the code name "Ultra", managed from Government Code and Cypher School at Bletchley Park. Properly used, the German Enigma and Lorenz ciphers should have been virtually unbreakable, but flaws in German cryptographic procedures, and poor discipline among the personnel carrying them out, created vulnerabilities which made Bletchley's attacks feasible. Bletchley's work was essential to defeating the U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic, and to the British naval victories in the Battle of Cape Matapan and the Battle of North Cape. In 1941, Ultra exerted a powerful effect on the North African desert campaign against German forces under General Erwin Rommel. General Sir Claude Auchinleck wrote that were it not for Ultra, "Rommel would have certainly got through to Cairo". Ultra decrypts featured prominently in the story of Operation SALAM, László Almásy's mission across the desert behind Allied lines in 1942. Prior to the Normandy landings on D-Day in June 1944, the Allies knew the locations of all but two of Germany's fifty-eight Western Front divisions. Winston Churchill was reported to have told King George VI: "It is thanks to the secret weapon of General Menzies, put into use on all the fronts, that we won the war!" Supreme Allied Commander, Dwight D. Eisenhower, at the end of the war, described Ultra as having been "decisive" to Allied victory. Official historian of British Intelligence in World War II Sir Harry Hinsley argued that Ultra shortened the war "by not less than two years and probably by four years"; and that, in the absence of Ultra, it is uncertain how the war would have ended. At a lower level, German cryptanalysis, direction finding, and traffic analysis were vital to Rommel's early successes in the Western Desert Campaign until British forces tightened their communications discipline and Australian raiders destroyed his principal SIGINT Company. == Technical definitions == The United States Department of Defense has defined the term "signals intelligence" as: A category of intelligence comprising either individually or in combination all communications intelligence (COMINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT), and foreign instrumentation signals intelligence (FISINT), however transmitted. Intelligence derived from communications, electronic, and foreign instrumentation signals. Being a broad field, SIGINT has many sub-disciplines. The two main ones are communications intelligence (COMINT) and electronic intelligence (ELINT). == Disciplines shared across the branches == === Targeting === A collection system has to know to look for a particular signal. "System", in this context, has several nuances. Targeting is the process of developing collection requirements: "1. A
AI anthropomorphism
AI anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like feelings, mental states, and behavioral characteristics to artificial intelligence systems. Factors related to the user of the AI – such as culture, age, education, gender, and personality traits – are also important determinants of the strength of anthropomorphic effects. Since the earliest days of AI development, humans have interpreted machine outputs through anthropomorphic frameworks, but the recent emergence of generative AI has amplified these tendencies. In research and engineering, there is a distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic design. The former is an innate human tendency toward non-human entities. The latter is the scientific community effort to “design anthropomorphism”. Such a design can involve the manipulation of cues, including AI appearance, behaviour and language. Contemporary AI systems today can generate extremely human-like outputs and are often designed specifically to do so, meaning that their anthropomorphic effects can be especially powerful. In some cases, anthropomorphism is accompanied with explicit beliefs that AI systems are capable of empathy, goodwill, understanding, or consciousness. == Background == === In early AIs === Views of artificial agents possessing a human-like intelligence have existed since the early development of computers in the mid-1900s. The use of the human mind as a metaphor for understanding the workings of machine systems was prevalent among researchers in the early days of computer science, with multiple influential works widely distributing the idea of intelligent machines. Among the most widely cited papers of this period was Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in which he introduced the Turing Test, stating that a machine was intelligent if it could produce conversation that was indistinguishable from that of a human. These academic works in the 1940s and 1950s gave early credibility to the idea that machine workings could be thought of similarly to human minds. The public quickly came to view artificial systems similarly, with often exaggerated conceptions of the capabilities of early machines. Among the most well-known demonstrations of this was through the chatbot ELIZA designed by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966. ELIZA responded to user inputs with a rudimentary text-processing approach that could not be considered anything resembling true understanding of the inputs, yet users, even when operating with full conscious knowledge of ELIZA's limitations, often began to ascribe motivation and understanding to the program's output. Weizenbaum later wrote, "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." Comparisons between the intellectual capabilities of artificial intelligence and human intelligence were continually intensified by the attempts of computer scientists to develop machines that could perform human tasks at a level equal to or better than humans. A symbolic turning point was achieved in 1997, when IBM's chess supercomputer Deep Blue defeated then-world champion Garry Kasparov in a highly publicized six-game match. The defeat of a human by a machine for the first time in chess – a game viewed as a canonical example of human intellect – and the media attention surrounding the match led to a significant shift, where views of parallels between human and artificial intelligence moved from abstract speculation to being concretely demonstrated. A similar achievement was reached in the board game Go in 2017, when the program AlphaGo defeated world top-ranked Ke Jie. === Large language models === The AI boom of the 2020s brought about the widespread emergence of generative AI; in particular, chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude based on large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly pervasive in everyday society. These systems are notable for the fact that they are able to respond to a wide range of prompts across contexts while producing strikingly human-like outputs – research has shown that humans are often unable to distinguish human-generated text from AI-generated text, and modern AI chatbots have formally been shown to pass the Turing test. As such, the anthropomorphic effects of AI are more powerful than ever. Given that LLMs have brought AI into the technological mainstream, considerable scientific effort has been devoted in recent years to understand existing and potential ramifications of AI in the public sphere; the prevalence and effects of anthropomorphism is one of those domains where much of this effort has been directed. == Current anthropomorphic attributions == === In the general public === Surveys have shown that a substantial portion of the public attributes human-like qualities to AI. In one sample of U.S. adults from 2024, two-thirds of people believed that ChatGPT is possibly conscious on some level, though other research has shown that the public still views the likelihood itself of AI consciousness as comparatively low. Another study conducted in 2025 found that women, people of color, and older individuals were most likely to anthropomorphize AI, as well as that – in general – humans view AIs as warm and competent, and anthropomorphic attributions to AI had increased by 34% in the past year. A YouGov poll reported that 46% of Americans believe that people should display politeness to AI chatbots by saying "please" and "thank you", demonstrating the application of social norms to AI. These beliefs extend to behavior, where majorities of AI users claim to always be polite to chatbots; of those who behave politely, most say they do so simply because it is the "nice" thing to do. In many recent cases, humans have developed robust interpersonal bonds with AI systems. For example: users of social chatbots like Replika and Character.ai have been documented to fall in love with the AIs, or to otherwise treat the AIs as intimate companions, and it has become increasingly common for individuals to use LLMs like ChatGPT as therapists. Chatbots are able to produce responses deeply attuned to users, as they are often designed to maximize agreeableness and mirror users' emotions; this can create compelling illusions of intimacy. === In the research community === In many cases, even AI researchers anthropomorphize AI systems in some capacity. Among the most extreme and well-publicized of these instances occurred in 2022, when engineer Blake Lemoine publicly claimed that Google's LLM LaMDA was conscious. Lemoine published the transcript of a conversation he had had with LaMDA regarding self identity and morality which he claimed was evidence of its sentience; he asserted that LaMDA was "a person" as defined by the United States Constitution and compared its mental capability to that of a 7- or 8-year-old. Lemoine's claims were widely dismissed by the scientific community and by Google itself, which described Lemoine's conclusions as "wholly unfounded" and fired him on the grounds that he had violated policies "to safeguard product information". It is much more common that AI researchers unintentionally imply humanness of AI through the ordinary use of anthropomorphic language to describe nonhuman agents. This kind of language, which Daniel Dennett coined the "intentional stance", is very common in everyday life in a variety of different contexts (e.g., "My computer doesn't want to turn on today"). For AI agents that may actually appear to very closely replicate some human abilities, however, the casual use of such anthropomorphic language in research has been scrutinized for being potentially misleading to the public. As early as 1976, Drew McDermott criticized the research community for the use of "wishful mnemonics", where AIs were referred to with terms like "understand" and "learn". In the LLM era, these criticisms have further intensified, with the negative effects of AI anthropomorphism in the public posing an especially salient danger given the elevated accessibility of modern AI. In some cases, the use of anthropomorphic language for AI is not unintentional, but is willfully used by researchers in order to promote better understanding of the brain – the idea being that, as AI can be functionally similar in some ways to the human brain, we may gain new insights and ideas from treating AI as a kind of model of the brain's workings. In particular, deep neuronal networks (DNNs) are often explicitly compared to the human brain, and significant advances in DNN research have stirred considerable enthusiasm about the ability of AI to emulate the human abilities. Caution has been urged in this domain as well, however; the use of anthropomorphic language can mask important differences that fundamentally distinguish AI from human intelligence. When it comes to DNNs, for example, it has been pointed out that they are still structurally quite different
TRAME
TRAME (TRAnsmission of MEssages) was the name of the second computer network in the world similar to the internet to be used in an electric utility. Like the internet, the base technology was packet switching; it was developed by the electric utility ENHER in Barcelona. It was deployed by the same utility, first in Catalonia and Aragón, Spain, and later in other places. Its development started in 1974 and the first routers, called nodes at that time, were deployed by 1978. The network was in operation until 2016 (38 years) with successive technological software and hardware updates. == Beginnings == In 1974, packet switching was a technology known only in research circles. The concept began in 1968 in association with the United States' Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) research project ARPANET. The idea of applying the packet switching concept to electric utilities control communication networks first appeared in 1974 when the Swedish power utility Vattenfall started to create its TIDAS packet-switching network and was followed by the Spanish electric utility ENHER, which aimed to telecontrol and automate its high-voltage power grid. For this purpose, ENHER created a specific team of people to develop both the packet-switching network and the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, also called the telecontrol system. By 1978 the first four TRAME routers were available and by 1980, eight of them were deployed and operating. The printed circuit boards (PCBs) controlling the communication lines were connected to a shared memory PCB allowing them to exchange data and messages. The project was developed together with its main initial application, the Telecontrol or SCADA system SICL (Sistema Integral de Control Local) with which initially they shared a very similar hardware. The maximum link capacity was 9600 bit/s, which in 1980 was the maximum possible on a 4 kHz wide voice channel at the time. These channels were the basic unit of the then-analog communication systems in use. By that time power utilities used either telephone calls or low speed (below 1200bit/s) dedicated links for telecontrol, typically shared among ten high-voltage electrical substations. == Services == The basic service provided by the TRAME network was SCADA or Telecontrol to automate the high-voltage power grid, thus improving operational efficiency, which was until then operated manually with telephone communication between human operators. Each TRAME router was associated with one or more remote terminal units (RTUs) of the SICL telecontrol system. It also had connected screens, and later PCs, located in electrical substations to interchange messages between them and with the Control Center located in the well-known Casa Fuster in Barcelona. It was a kind of predecessor to today's e-mail. Later, in the 1990s, other protocols (X.25, IP) were developed to include corporate information technology (IT) terminals, company physical surveillance systems and other services. Additionally, applications and terminals were developed for the transmission of voice and video over the TRAME network. == Protocols == The TRAME routing system, like that of the original ARPANET, was based on the Bellman-Ford algorithm but with "split-horizon" as in the Swedish TIDAS network, but with an original improvement. This protocol allows optimal paths to be found in meshed networks for each packet to be transmitted, allowing the shared use of the same network by multiple services. In contrast, traditional circuit-switched technology used to establish dedicated circuits for each service or communication. The addressing of routers and terminals used a proprietary system with a 16-bit address; it would be the equivalent of the well-known IP (Internet Protocol) version 4 (IPv4), still in use on the internet today, which uses 32-bit addresses. It is necessary to take into account that in 1978, the IPv4 protocol did not yet exist since the IPv4 version used on the internet did not appear until 1981, and in fact, did not reach the general public until much later. The line protocols were also proprietary and were called UCL (Unidad de Control de Línea, 'line control unit'), which linked the routers together, and UTR (Unión TRAME-Remotas), the access protocol. They were designed to offer the highest quality of service required by the telecontrol/SCADA function in terms of data integrity and availability set by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) IEC-870-5-1 and ANSI C37.1. standards, and because the protocol used at the time in corporate computer networks, HDLC (high-level data link control), did not offer enough quality for critical industrial applications. Later on, other protocols like X.25 and IP were also made compatible with the aforementioned TRAME protocols. In 2000, the UTR protocol was replaced by the international standard IEC 60870- 5-101/104. Initially network flow control was based on the management of eight data priorities in head-of-the-line (HOL) waiting queues. Later and after some experimentation, a flow control method based on a bit indicating route congestion and management of the gap between packets when accessing the network was adopted. This required measuring the capacity of the route bottleneck. An end-to-end protocol was also added for some flows requiring order preservation like X.25. == Evolution == To last for 38 years, the technology had to endure intense evolution. There were essentially four TRAME generations which are summarized in the table. A description of the four generations of TRAME is provided below. === TRAME 1 === The project began in 1974 and in 1978 a first network with four routers was already installed and in operation at the electric utility ENHER. In 1980, the network had eight nodes in operation (see Figure I). The hardware was based on the Zilog Z80 processor and had a multiprocessor structure with 16 processors sharing a common memory. The software was developed at ENHER's headquarters located in the well-known Casa Fuster, Passeig de Gràcia, 132, Barcelona, using the Z80 assembly language. Beyond 1980 the software began to be written in C programming language and an HP64000 Logic Development System emulator was used for the purpose. The hardware was produced by ISEL, an INI (Instituto Nacional de Indústria) company. The routing system was a variant of Bellman-Ford with split-horizon. It was an improvement of the original ARPA network routing system consisting of an original update procedure which allowed for a faster reaction to changes. The distance function was the number of packets in the output waiting queues plus one. The line protocols (UCL for internal lines linking routers and UTR for accessing the network) were designed to meet the stringent requirements set for telecontrol (SCADA) of high-voltage power networks (IEC-870-5-1 and ANSI C37.1 standards). At the OSI transport layer, windows with a width of 1 to 8, depending on the required service, residing in the terminals were used. Initially, addresses were only 14 bits long to address both the routers (called nodes by then) and the devices connected to them. They were made up of two fields, an 8-bit field to address the router and a 6-bit sub-address to address the terminals connected to it. The node address was assigned to the nodes and not to the ends of the links as in the internet. The basic advantages of TRAME over other technologies used in electric utilities at the time were in part due to the packet technology itself: ability to manage any network topology, automatic adaptability to topological and traffic changes, integration of different link technologies (digital or analog) and capacities in a single network, open and decentralized intercommunicability between users and devices, simultaneous communication with several users and locations from a single physical connection, and integrated network supervision. In fact, the network was provided from its inception with a supervision center consisting of a computer and a synoptic board located at the company's headquarters (see Figure II). But other advantages were due to the specific design of TRAME: high data integrity, priority support for packets, and ease of including special protocols such as the many SCADA protocols in use at that time. All of the above resulted in improved quality of service, especially with respect to data availability and data integrity, and in the integration of services in a single network. Part of the evolution of its deployment can be seen in Figures II to IV. === TRAME 2 === In 1990, TRAME 2 was fully deployed and TRAME 1 was replaced. The processor of the new hardware was Intel 80286 and the hardware structure and external appearance of the routers was very similar to that of TRAME 1. The software was written in C and the above-mentioned emulator continued to be used. Improvements over TRAME 1 were the introduction of the standardized X.25 access protocol