AI Tools For Teachers

AI Tools For Teachers — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Adversarial stylometry

Adversarial stylometry is the practice of altering writing style to reduce the potential for stylometry to discover the author's identity or their characteristics. This task is also known as authorship obfuscation or authorship anonymisation. Stylometry poses a significant privacy challenge in its ability to unmask anonymous authors or to link pseudonyms to an author's other identities, which, for example, creates difficulties for whistleblowers, activists, and hoaxers and fraudsters. The privacy risk is expected to grow as machine learning techniques and text corpora develop. All adversarial stylometry shares the core idea of faithfully paraphrasing the source text so that the meaning is unchanged but the stylistic signals are obscured. Such a faithful paraphrase is an adversarial example for a stylometric classifier. Several broad approaches to this exist, with some overlap: imitation, substituting the author's own style for another's; translation, applying machine translation with the hope that this eliminates characteristic style in the source text; and obfuscation, deliberately modifying a text's style to make it not resemble the author's own. Manually obscuring style is possible, but laborious; in some circumstances, it is preferable or necessary. Automated tooling, either semi- or fully-automatic, could assist an author. How best to perform the task and the design of such tools is an open research question. While some approaches have been shown to be able to defeat particular stylometric analyses, particularly those that do not account for the potential of adversariality, establishing safety in the face of unknown analyses is an issue. Ensuring the faithfulness of the paraphrase is a critical challenge for automated tools. It is uncertain if the practice of adversarial stylometry is detectable in itself. Some studies have found that particular methods produced signals in the output text, but a stylometrist who is uncertain of what methods may have been used may not be able to reliably detect them. == History == Rao & Rohatgi (2000), an early work in adversarial stylometry, identified machine translation as a possibility, but noted that the quality of translators available at the time presented severe challenges. Kacmarcik & Gamon (2006) is another early work. Brennan, Afroz & Greenstadt (2012) performed the first evaluation of adversarial stylometric methods on actual texts. Brennan & Greenstadt (2009) introduced the first corpus of adversarially authored texts specifically for evaluating stylometric methods; other corpora include the International Imitation Hemingway Competition, the Faux Faulkner contest, and the hoax blog A Gay Girl in Damascus. == Motivations == Rao & Rohatgi (2000) suggest that short, unattributed documents (i.e., anonymous posts) are not at risk of stylometric identification, but pseudonymous authors who have not practiced adversarial stylometry in producing corpuses of thousands of words may be vulnerable. Narayanan et al. (2012) attempted large-scale deanonymisation of 100,000 blog authors with mixed results: the identifications were significantly better than chance, but only accurately matched the blog and author a fifth of the time; identification improved with the number of posts written by the author in the corpus. Even if an author is not identified, some of their characteristics may still be deduced stylometrically, or stylometry may narrow the anonymity set of potential authors sufficiently for other information to complete the identification. Detecting author characteristics (e.g., gender or age) is often simpler than identifying an author from a large, possibly open, set of candidates. Modern machine learning techniques offer powerful tools for identification; further development of corpora and computational stylometric techniques are likely to raise further privacy issues. Gröndahl & Asokan (2020a) say that the general validity of the hypothesis underlying stylometry—that authors have invariant, content-independent 'style fingerprints'—is uncertain, but "the deanonymisation attack is a real privacy concern". Those interested in practicing adversarial stylometry and stylistic deception include whistleblowers avoiding retribution; journalists and activists; perpetrators of frauds and hoaxes; authors of fake reviews; literary forgers; criminals disguising their identity from investigators; and, generally, anyone with a desire for anonymity or pseudonymity. Authors, or agents acting on behalf of authors, may also attempt to remove stylistic clues to author characteristics (e.g., race or gender) so that knowledge of those characteristics cannot be used for discrimination (e.g., through algorithmic bias). Another possible use for adversarial stylometry is in disguising automatically generated text as human-authored. == Methods == With imitation, the author attempts to mislead stylometry by matching their style to another author's. An incomplete imitation, where some of the true author's unique characteristics appear alongside the imitated author's, can be a detectable signal for the use of adversarial stylometry. Imitation can be performed automatically with style transfer systems, though this typically requires a large corpus in the target style for the system to learn from. Another approach is translation, which employs machine translation of a source text to eliminate characteristic style, often through multiple translators in sequence to produce a round-trip translation. Such chained translation can lead to texts being significantly altered, even to the point of incomprehensibility; improved translation tools reduce this risk. More simply-structured texts can be easier to machine translate without losing the original meaning. Machine translation blurs into direct stylistic imitation or obfuscation achieved through automated style transfer, which can be viewed as a "translation" with the same language as input and output. With low-quality translation tools, an author can be required to manually correct major translation errors while avoiding the hazard of re-introducing stylistic characteristics. Wang, Juola & Riddell (2022) found that gross errors introduced by Google Translate were rare, but more common with several intermediate translations—however, occasional simple or short sentences and misspellings in the source text appeared verbatim in the output, potentially providing an identifying signal. Chain translation can leave characteristic traces of its application in a document, which may allow reconstruction of the intermediate languages used and the number of translation steps performed. Obfuscation involves deliberately changing the style of a text to reduce its similarity to other texts by some metric; this may be performed at the time of writing by conscious modification, or as part of a revision process with feedback from the metric being targeted as an input to decide when the text has been sufficiently obfuscated. In contrast to translation, complex texts can offer more opportunities for effective obfuscation without altering meaning, and likewise genres with more permissible variation allow more obfuscation. However, longer texts are harder to thoroughly obfuscate. Obfuscation can blend into imitation if the author develops a novel target style, distinct from their original style. With respect to masking author characteristics, obfuscation may aim to achieve a union (adding signals for imitated characteristics) or an intersection (removing signals and normalising) of other authors' styles. Avoiding the author's own idiosyncrasies and producing a "normalised" text is a critical obfuscatory step: an author may have a unique tendency to misspell certain words, use particular variants, or to format a document in a characteristic way. Stylometric signals vary in how simply they can be adversarially masked; an author may easily change their vocabulary by conscious choice, but altering the pattern of grammar or the letter frequency in their text may be harder to achieve, though Juola & Vescovi (2011) report that imitation typically succeeds at masking more characteristics than obfuscation. Automated obfuscation may require large amounts of training data written by the author. Concerning automated implementations of adversarial stylometry, two possible implementations are rule-based systems for paraphrasing; and encoder–decoder architectures, where the text passes through an intermediate format that is (intended to be) style-neutral. Another division in automated methods is whether there is feedback from an identification system or not. With such feedback, finding paraphrases for author masking has been characterised as a heuristic search problem, exploring textual variants until the result is stylistically sufficiently far (in the case of obfuscation) or near (in the case of imitation), which then constitutes an adversarial example for that identification system. == Evaluation == How
Read more →
Computer-aided software engineering

Computer-aided software engineering (CASE) is a domain of software tools used to design and implement applications. CASE tools are similar to and are partly inspired by computer-aided design (CAD) tools used for designing hardware products. CASE tools are intended to help develop high-quality, defect-free, and maintainable software. CASE software was often associated with methods for the development of information systems together with automated tools that could be used in the software development process. == History == The Information System Design and Optimization System (ISDOS) project, started in 1968 at the University of Michigan, initiated a great deal of interest in the whole concept of using computer systems to help analysts in the very difficult process of analysing requirements and developing systems. Several papers by Daniel Teichroew fired a whole generation of enthusiasts with the potential of automated systems development. His Problem Statement Language / Problem Statement Analyzer (PSL/PSA) tool was a CASE tool although it predated the term. Another major thread emerged as a logical extension to the data dictionary of a database. By extending the range of metadata held, the attributes of an application could be held within a dictionary and used at runtime. This "active dictionary" became the precursor to the more modern model-driven engineering capability. However, the active dictionary did not provide a graphical representation of any of the metadata. It was the linking of the concept of a dictionary holding analysts' metadata, as derived from the use of an integrated set of techniques, together with the graphical representation of such data that gave rise to the earlier versions of CASE. The next entrant into the market was Excelerator from Index Technology in Cambridge, Mass. While DesignAid ran on Convergent Technologies and later Burroughs Ngen networked microcomputers, Index launched Excelerator on the IBM PC/AT platform. While, at the time of launch, and for several years, the IBM platform did not support networking or a centralized database as did the Convergent Technologies or Burroughs machines, the allure of IBM was strong, and Excelerator came to prominence. Hot on the heels of Excelerator were a rash of offerings from companies such as Knowledgeware (James Martin, Fran Tarkenton and Don Addington), Texas Instrument's CA Gen and Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION toolset (DESIGN/1, INSTALL/1, FCP). CASE tools were at their peak in the early 1990s. According to the PC Magazine of January 1990, over 100 companies were offering nearly 200 different CASE tools. At the time IBM had proposed AD/Cycle, which was an alliance of software vendors centered on IBM's Software repository using IBM DB2 in mainframe and OS/2: The application development tools can be from several sources: from IBM, from vendors, and from the customers themselves. IBM has entered into relationships with Bachman Information Systems, Index Technology Corporation, and Knowledgeware wherein selected products from these vendors will be marketed through an IBM complementary marketing program to provide offerings that will help to achieve complete life-cycle coverage. With the decline of the mainframe, AD/Cycle and the Big CASE tools died off, opening the market for the mainstream CASE tools of today. Many of the leaders of the CASE market of the early 1990s ended up being purchased by Computer Associates, including IEW, IEF, ADW, Cayenne, and Learmonth & Burchett Management Systems (LBMS). The other trend that led to the evolution of CASE tools was the rise of object-oriented methods and tools. Most of the various tool vendors added some support for object-oriented methods and tools. In addition new products arose that were designed from the bottom up to support the object-oriented approach. Andersen developed its project Eagle as an alternative to Foundation. Several of the thought leaders in object-oriented development each developed their own methodology and CASE tool set: Jacobson, Rumbaugh, Booch, etc. Eventually, these diverse tool sets and methods were consolidated via standards led by the Object Management Group (OMG). The OMG's Unified Modelling Language (UML) is currently widely accepted as the industry standard for object-oriented modeling. == CASE software == === Tools === CASE tools support specific tasks in the software development life-cycle. They can be divided into the following categories: Business and analysis modeling: Graphical modeling tools. E.g., E/R modeling, object modeling, etc. Development: Design and construction phases of the life-cycle. Debugging environments. E.g., IISE LKO. Verification and validation: Analyze code and specifications for correctness, performance, etc. Configuration management: Control the check-in and check-out of repository objects and files. E.g., SCCS, IISE. Metrics and measurement: Analyze code for complexity, modularity (e.g., no "go to's"), performance, etc. Project management: Manage project plans, task assignments, scheduling. Another common way to distinguish CASE tools is the distinction between Upper CASE and Lower CASE. Upper CASE Tools support business and analysis modeling. They support traditional diagrammatic languages such as ER diagrams, Data flow diagram, Structure charts, Decision Trees, Decision tables, etc. Lower CASE Tools support development activities, such as physical design, debugging, construction, testing, component integration, maintenance, and reverse engineering. All other activities span the entire life-cycle and apply equally to upper and lower CASE. === Workbenches === Workbenches integrate two or more CASE tools and support specific software-process activities. Hence they achieve: A homogeneous and consistent interface (presentation integration) Seamless integration of tools and toolchains (control and data integration) An example workbench is Microsoft's Visual Basic programming environment. It incorporates several development tools: a GUI builder, a smart code editor, debugger, etc. Most commercial CASE products tended to be such workbenches that seamlessly integrated two or more tools. Workbenches also can be classified in the same manner as tools; as focusing on Analysis, Development, Verification, etc. as well as being focused on the upper case, lower case, or processes such as configuration management that span the complete life-cycle. === Environments === An environment is a collection of CASE tools or workbenches that attempts to support the complete software process. This contrasts with tools that focus on one specific task or a specific part of the life-cycle. CASE environments are classified by Fuggetta as follows: Toolkits: Loosely coupled collections of tools. These typically build on operating system workbenches such as the Unix Programmer's Workbench or the VMS VAX set. They typically perform integration via piping or some other basic mechanism to share data and pass control. The strength of easy integration is also one of the drawbacks. Simple passing of parameters via technologies such as shell scripting can't provide the kind of sophisticated integration that a common repository database can. Fourth generation: These environments are also known as 4GL standing for fourth generation language environments due to the fact that the early environments were designed around specific languages such as Visual Basic. They were the first environments to provide deep integration of multiple tools. Typically these environments were focused on specific types of applications. For example, user-interface driven applications that did standard atomic transactions to a relational database. Examples are Informix 4GL, and Focus. Language-centered: Environments based on a single often object-oriented language such as the Symbolics Lisp Genera environment or VisualWorks Smalltalk from Parcplace. In these environments all the operating system resources were objects in the object-oriented language. This provides powerful debugging and graphical opportunities but the code developed is mostly limited to the specific language. For this reason, these environments were mostly a niche within CASE. Their use was mostly for prototyping and R&D projects. A common core idea for these environments was the model–view–controller user interface that facilitated keeping multiple presentations of the same design consistent with the underlying model. The MVC architecture was adopted by the other types of CASE environments as well as many of the applications that were built with them. Integrated: These environments are an example of what most IT people tend to think of first when they think of CASE. Environments such as IBM's AD/Cycle, Andersen Consulting's FOUNDATION, the ICL CADES system, and DEC Cohesion. These environments attempt to cover the complete life-cycle from analysis to maintenance and provide an integrated database repository for storing all artifacts of the software pr
Read more →
Knapsack cryptosystems

Knapsack cryptosystems are cryptosystems whose security is based on the hardness of solving the knapsack problem. They remain quite unpopular because simple versions of these algorithms have been broken for several decades. However, that type of cryptosystem is a good candidate for post-quantum cryptography. The most famous knapsack cryptosystem is the Merkle-Hellman Public Key Cryptosystem, one of the first public key cryptosystems, published the same year as the RSA cryptosystem. However, this system has been broken by several attacks: one from Shamir, one by Adleman, and the low density attack. However, there exist modern knapsack cryptosystems that are considered secure so far: among them is Nasako-Murakami 2006. Knapsack cryptosystems, when not subject to classical cryptoanalysis, are believed to be difficult even for quantum computers. That is not the case for systems that rely on factoring large integers, like RSA, or computing discrete logarithms, like ECDSA, problems solved in polynomial time with Shor's algorithm.
Read more →
Memory-hard function

In cryptography, a memory-hard function (MHF) is a function that costs a significant amount of memory to efficiently evaluate. It differs from a memory-bound function, which incurs cost by slowing down computation through memory latency. MHFs have found use in key stretching and proof of work as their increased memory requirements significantly reduce the computational efficiency advantage of custom hardware over general-purpose hardware compared to non-MHFs. == Introduction == MHFs are designed to consume large amounts of memory on a computer in order to reduce the effectiveness of parallel computing. In order to evaluate the function using less memory, a significant time penalty is incurred. As each MHF computation requires a large amount of memory, the number of function computations that can occur simultaneously is limited by the amount of available memory. This reduces the efficiency of specialised hardware, such as application-specific integrated circuits and graphics processing units, which utilise parallelisation, in computing a MHF for a large number of inputs, such as when brute-forcing password hashes or mining cryptocurrency. == Motivation and examples == Bitcoin's proof-of-work uses repeated evaluation of the SHA-256 function, but modern general-purpose processors, such as off-the-shelf CPUs, are inefficient when computing a fixed function many times over. Specialized hardware, such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) designed for Bitcoin mining, can use 30,000 times less energy per hash than x86 CPUs whilst having much greater hash rates. This led to concerns about the centralization of mining for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Because of this inequality between miners using ASICs and miners using CPUs or off-the shelf hardware, designers of later proof-of-work systems utilised hash functions for which it was difficult to construct ASICs that could evaluate the hash function significantly faster than a CPU. As memory cost is platform-independent, MHFs have found use in cryptocurrency mining, such as for Litecoin, which uses scrypt as its hash function. They are also useful in password hashing because they significantly increase the cost of trying many possible passwords against a leaked database of hashed passwords without significantly increasing the computation time for legitimate users. == Measuring memory hardness == There are various ways to measure the memory hardness of a function. One commonly seen measure is cumulative memory complexity (CMC). In a parallel model, CMC is the sum of the memory required to compute a function over every time step of the computation. Other viable measures include integrating memory usage against time and measuring memory bandwidth consumption on a memory bus. Functions requiring high memory bandwidth are sometimes referred to as "bandwidth-hard functions". == Variants == MHFs can be categorized into two different groups based on their evaluation patterns: data-dependent memory-hard functions (dMHF) and data-independent memory-hard functions (iMHF). As opposed to iMHFs, the memory access pattern of a dMHF depends on the function input, such as the password provided to a key derivation function. Examples of dMHFs are scrypt and Argon2d, while examples of iMHFs are Argon2i and catena. Many of these MHFs have been designed to be used as password hashing functions because of their memory hardness. A notable problem with dMHFs is that they are prone to side-channel attacks such as cache timing. This has resulted in a preference for using iMHFs when hashing passwords. However, iMHFs have been mathematically proven to have weaker memory hardness properties than dMHFs.
Read more →
Data access layer

A data access layer (DAL) is a software architectural layer that provides access to data from one or more sources, such as a relational database, NoSQL database, SQL query engine, file system, or other persistent storage. It separates client code from the details of storage systems, query execution, connection handling, and data retrieval. Data access layers are commonly used to centralize data access logic, reduce coupling between applications and data sources, and provide a consistent interface for retrieving, writing, or querying data. Depending on the system, a data access layer may be implemented as application code, a shared library, an intermediary service, or part of a broader database abstraction layer. == In application architecture == In application software, a data access layer provides a boundary between business logic or application code and the systems used to store or retrieve data. For example, a data access layer may expose methods or interfaces for retrieving, writing, or querying data while hiding details such as connection management, SQL statements, storage APIs, error handling, and result conversion. Depending on the application, the layer may return objects, records, tabular results, documents, streams, or other representations of data. A common implementation is a set of classes, functions, or methods that directly reference database queries, stored procedures, storage APIs, or other data sources. For example, instead of using commands such as insert, delete, and update throughout an application to access a specific table, methods such as registerUser or loginUser may be implemented inside the data access layer. Business logic methods from an application can also be mapped to the data access layer. Instead of making several database queries directly, an application can call a single DAL method that abstracts those database calls. Applications using a data access layer may be either dependent on or independent from a particular database server. If the data access layer supports multiple database systems, the application can use any database system that the DAL can access. In either case, the data access layer provides a centralized location for calls into the underlying data store, which can make it easier to maintain, test, or port the application to other storage systems. == Implementation patterns == A data access layer can be implemented using several patterns and technologies, including data access objects, repositories, stored procedures, query builders, database drivers, or object–relational mapping tools. These mechanisms may implement part or all of a data access layer, but are not always equivalent to the layer itself. Object–relational mapping tools are commonly used in data access layers for object-oriented applications that map records in a relational database to objects in a programming language. Other data access layers may expose lower-level database interfaces, tabular results, document-oriented data, files, streams, or protocol-level interfaces. == Use with multiple underlying data systems == A data access layer may be used to abstract differences between multiple underlying data systems, allowing applications to access them through a more consistent interface. In such designs, applications call the DAL rather than interacting directly with each database or storage system. The layer may then handle connection management, query generation, result mapping, error handling, and other implementation details. A data access layer may be implemented as a shared library or as an intermediary service, such as a proxy or gateway. In this configuration, client applications or services connect to the data access layer, which then communicates with one or more underlying databases or query engines. This can provide a common location for authentication, authorization, logging, routing, and translation between different database interfaces. == Interfaces and protocols == Data access layers may expose or use standardized interfaces and protocols for database access. Examples include Open Database Connectivity (ODBC), Java Database Connectivity (JDBC), database-native wire protocols, and newer interfaces such as Apache Arrow Database Connectivity (ADBC) and Arrow Flight SQL. In systems that support multiple data stores, a data access layer may provide a consistent interface while using different drivers, protocols, or query mechanisms internally. == Distinction from related patterns == A data access layer is related to, but broader than, a data access object, which is usually an object-oriented design pattern for encapsulating access to a persistence mechanism. It is also related to a database abstraction layer, which focuses on hiding differences between database systems. In practice, the terms may overlap.
Read more →
Data verification

Data verification is a process in which different types of data are checked for accuracy and inconsistencies after data migration is done. In some domains it is referred to Source Data Verification (SDV), such as in clinical trials. Data verification helps to determine whether data was accurately translated when data is transferred from one source to another, is complete, and supports processes in the new system. During verification, there may be a need for a parallel run of both systems to identify areas of disparity and forestall erroneous data loss. Methods for data verification include double data entry, proofreading and automated verification of data. Proofreading data involves someone checking the data entered against the original document. This is also time-consuming and costly. Automated verification of data can be achieved using one way hashes locally or through use of a SaaS based service such as Q by SoLVBL to provide immutable seals to allow verification of the original data.
Read more →
Data deduplication

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

Social media is being increasingly used for health awareness. It is not only used to promote health and wellness but also to motivate and guide public for various disease and ailments. Use of social media was proven to be cornerstone for awareness during COVID-19 management. In recent times, it is one of the most cost effective tool for cardiovascular health awareness since it can be used to motivate people for adoption of healthy lifestyle practices. Over the span of a decade, and Doctor Mike utilized social media to significantly impact the public about cardiovascular health awareness. == Background == Social media is proven to be useful for various chronic and incurable diseases where patients form groups and connect for sharing of knowledge. Similarly, health professionals, health institutions, and various other individuals and organizations have their own social media accounts for health information, awareness, guidance, or motivation for their patients. The utilization of social media for health awareness campaigns has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. The history of utilizing social media in health campaigns can be traced back to the early 2000s with the rise of platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. == Health campaigns == Health campaigns especially for chronic diseases like cancer and heart diseases are increasingly common on different social media platforms because social media serves as a cost-effective medium for launching and promoting health campaigns. Many organizations and governmental bodies use platforms like Twitter and Instagram to reach a wide audience. This wide outreach gives health campaigns more attention and support while raising awareness of their specific cause. Recently, there have been increasing calls for health organizations to involve the public and consumer groups in their social media health campaigns to ensure their acceptability with the target audience, encouraging use of collaborations and co-design of messages. == Research == When incorporating social media into health research recruitment, there is potential for a greater number of individuals to participate. Social media allows researchers to reach a wide range of participants while also allowing for recruitment 24 hours a day. There are many health organizations with large social media followings to allow them to reach a large amount of individuals. If these organizations pair with researchers and post flyers or make posts about a study they may be able to find the population that they are looking for. Although there are positives to using social media for health research recruitment, looking at the issues is important. Using this method in recruitment may cause competition between companies for the attention of the users. Another important point is that this is dependent on the type of health condition that is being researched. For chronic conditions, there are many organizations and platforms for support while for acute illnesses, there are not as many organizations that would be able to promote these studies and post for outreach. == Patient education == Patients increasingly turn to social media for health communication and health-related information. Online health communities, forums and blogs enable individuals to share their experiences, offer support, and seek advice from peers. Healthcare professionals also use social media to provide valuable insights and address common health concerns. The use of social media for patient education allows individuals to gain more information for their illness or disease along with gaining support from individuals who may be experiencing the same. Many health organizations such as cancer organizations or organizations for chronic health conditions often have social media platforms that allow individuals to connect and even share their own stories. Peer support is beneficial to patients emotionally and even for them to understand their condition and how to cope. Another way that social media allows individuals to gain more information is the improvement of health literacy. Medical jargon can be confusing for individuals especially when they are newly diagnosed with an illness or disease. Social media has been able to create platforms that explain the information that individuals may need when they are newly diagnosed or if they just want to learn more about their illness. Medical conditions can be confusing but using social media may allow for individuals to develop a better understanding in a manner that they understand. When patients have a better understanding of their health there will be a result of better health outcomes. == Misinformation == While social media is a powerful tool for health awareness, it comes with challenges. Misinformation can spread rapidly, potentially leading to incorrect or harmful health practices. Ensuring the accuracy of health-related information on social media is an ongoing concern. Health misinformation can be easily spread through social media to large amounts of individuals which can make this dangerous. Often, critics will question whether health-related information that is shared online is credible. Social media does not require the amount of regulation that could prevent false medical information from being disseminated online. According to The Influencer Effect: Exploring the persuasive communication tactics of social media influencers in the health and wellness industry by Deborah Deutsch, "the information shared is often lacking accepted scientific evidence or is contrary to industry standards, and, at times, deceptive, unethical, and misleading." One example of this was in 2020, when President Donald Trump said in speeches and on Twitter that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine could be used to treat COVID-19. While these drugs are antimalaria, it was being spread that they could be used for COVID-19. This resulted in increased deaths and individuals falling ill from taking this drug and the misinformation that was spread about this drug. Spreading misinformation regarding health is one of the biggest concerns when using social media for health awareness. When spreading misinformation about health there is an increase in confusion about what is true and what is false regardless of who is saying this information. Along with the confusion of the public, there is a sense of mistrust that is a consequence of misinformation. Individuals are seeing different opinions which leads people to a situation where they do not know who to trust. While health misinformation is one of the largest issues, there are ways to help prevent it. As individuals, it is important to know where you are getting your information from and learn how to identify what is misinformation and avoid the spread of it. == Privacy and ethical issues == The sharing of personal health information on social media raises privacy and ethical concerns. Striking a balance between raising awareness and respecting individuals' privacy remains a delicate issue.
Read more →
Lexical Markup Framework

Language resource management – Lexical markup framework (LMF; ISO 24613), produced by ISO/TC 37, is the ISO standard for natural language processing (NLP) and machine-readable dictionary (MRD) lexicons. The scope is standardization of principles and methods relating to language resources in the contexts of multilingual communication. == Objectives == The goals of LMF are to provide a common model for the creation and use of lexical resources, to manage the exchange of data between and among these resources, and to enable the merging of large number of individual electronic resources to form extensive global electronic resources. Types of individual instantiations of LMF can include monolingual, bilingual or multilingual lexical resources. The same specifications are to be used for both small and large lexicons, for both simple and complex lexicons, for both written and spoken lexical representations. The descriptions range from morphology, syntax, computational semantics to computer-assisted translation. The covered languages are not restricted to European languages but cover all natural languages. The range of targeted NLP applications is not restricted. LMF is able to represent most lexicons, including WordNet, EDR and PAROLE lexicons. == History == In the past, lexicon standardization has been studied and developed by a series of projects like GENELEX, EDR, EAGLES, MULTEXT, PAROLE, SIMPLE and ISLE. Then, the ISO/TC 37 National delegations decided to address standards dedicated to NLP and lexicon representation. The work on LMF started in Summer 2003 by a new work item proposal issued by the US delegation. In Fall 2003, the French delegation issued a technical proposition for a data model dedicated to NLP lexicons. In early 2004, the ISO/TC 37 committee decided to form a common ISO project with Nicoletta Calzolari (CNR-ILC Italy) as convenor and Gil Francopoulo (Tagmatica France) and Monte George (ANSI, United States) as editors. The first step in developing LMF was to design an overall framework based on the general features of existing lexicons and to develop a consistent terminology to describe the components of those lexicons. The next step was the actual design of a comprehensive model that best represented all of the lexicons in detail. A large panel of 60 experts contributed a wide range of requirements for LMF that covered many types of NLP lexicons. The editors of LMF worked closely with the panel of experts to identify the best solutions and reach a consensus on the design of LMF. Special attention was paid to the morphology in order to provide powerful mechanisms for handling problems in several languages that were known as difficult to handle. 13 versions have been written, dispatched (to the National nominated experts), commented and discussed during various ISO technical meetings. After five years of work, including numerous face-to-face meetings and e-mail exchanges, the editors arrived at a coherent UML model. In conclusion, LMF should be considered a synthesis of the state of the art in NLP lexicon field. == Current stage == The ISO number is 24613. The LMF specification has been published officially as an International Standard on 17 November 2008. == As one of the members of the ISO/TC 37 family of standards == The ISO/TC 37 standards are currently elaborated as high level specifications and deal with word segmentation (ISO 24614), annotations (ISO 24611 a.k.a. MAF, ISO 24612 a.k.a. LAF, ISO 24615 a.k.a. SynAF, and ISO 24617-1 a.k.a. SemAF/Time), feature structures (ISO 24610), multimedia containers (ISO 24616 a.k.a. MLIF), and lexicons (ISO 24613). These standards are based on low level specifications dedicated to constants, namely data categories (revision of ISO 12620), language codes (ISO 639), scripts codes (ISO 15924), country codes (ISO 3166) and Unicode (ISO 10646). The two level organization forms a coherent family of standards with the following common and simple rules: the high level specification provides structural elements that are adorned by the standardized constants; the low level specifications provide standardized constants as metadata. == Key standards == The linguistics constants like /feminine/ or /transitive/ are not defined within LMF but are recorded in the Data Category Registry (DCR) that is maintained as a global resource by ISO/TC 37 in compliance with ISO/IEC 11179-3:2003. And these constants are used to adorn the high level structural elements. The LMF specification complies with the modeling principles of Unified Modeling Language (UML) as defined by Object Management Group (OMG). The structure is specified by means of UML class diagrams. The examples are presented by means of UML instance (or object) diagrams. An XML DTD is given in an annex of the LMF document. == Model structure == LMF is composed of the following components: The core package that is the structural skeleton which describes the basic hierarchy of information in a lexical entry. Extensions of the core package which are expressed in a framework that describes the reuse of the core components in conjunction with the additional components required for a specific lexical resource. The extensions are specifically dedicated to morphology, MRD, NLP syntax, NLP semantics, NLP multilingual notations, NLP morphological patterns, multiword expression patterns, and constraint expression patterns. == Example == In the following example, the lexical entry is associated with a lemma clergyman and two inflected forms clergyman and clergymen. The language coding is set for the whole lexical resource. The language value is set for the whole lexicon as shown in the following UML instance diagram. The elements Lexical Resource, Global Information, Lexicon, Lexical Entry, Lemma, and Word Form define the structure of the lexicon. They are specified within the LMF document. On the contrary, languageCoding, language, partOfSpeech, commonNoun, writtenForm, grammaticalNumber, singular, plural are data categories that are taken from the Data Category Registry. These marks adorn the structure. The values ISO 639-3, clergyman, clergymen are plain character strings. The value eng is taken from the list of languages as defined by ISO 639-3. With some additional information like dtdVersion and feat, the same data can be expressed by the following XML fragment: This example is rather simple, while LMF can represent much more complex linguistic descriptions the XML tagging is correspondingly complex. == Selected publications about LMF == The first publication about the LMF specification as it has been ratified by ISO (this paper became (in 2015) the 9th most cited paper within the Language Resources and Evaluation conferences from LREC papers): Language Resources and Evaluation LREC-2006/Genoa: Gil Francopoulo, Monte George, Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Nuria Bel, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework (LMF) About semantic representation: Gesellschaft für linguistische Datenverarbeitung GLDV-2007/Tübingen: Gil Francopoulo, Nuria Bel, Monte George Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Mandy Pet, Claudia Soria: Lexical Markup Framework ISO standard for semantic information in NLP lexicons About African languages: Traitement Automatique des langues naturelles, Marseille, 2014: Mouhamadou Khoule, Mouhamad Ndiankho Thiam, El Hadj Mamadou Nguer: Toward the establishment of a LMF-based Wolof language lexicon (Vers la mise en place d'un lexique basé sur LMF pour la langue wolof) [in French] About Asian languages: Lexicography, Journal of ASIALEX, Springer 2014: Lexical Markup Framework: Gil Francopoulo, Chu-Ren Huang: An ISO Standard for Electronic Lexicons and its Implications for Asian Languages DOI 10.1007/s40607-014-0006-z About European languages: COLING 2010: Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs: Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for GermaNet EACL 2012: Judith Eckle-Kohler, Iryna Gurevych: Subcat-LMF: Fleshing out a standardized format for subcategorization frame interoperability EACL 2012: Iryna Gurevych, Judith Eckle-Kohler, Silvana Hartmann, Michael Matuschek, Christian M Meyer, Christian Wirth: UBY - A Large-Scale Unified Lexical-Semantic Resource Based on LMF. About Semitic languages: Journal of Natural Language Engineering, Cambridge University Press (to appear in Spring 2015): Aida Khemakhem, Bilel Gargouri, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou, Gil Francopoulo: ISO Standard Modeling of a large Arabic Dictionary. Proceedings of the seventh Global Wordnet Conference 2014: Nadia B M Karmani, Hsan Soussou, Adel M Alimi: Building a standardized Wordnet in the ISO LMF for aeb language. Proceedings of the workshop: HLT & NLP within Arabic world, LREC 2008: Noureddine Loukil, Kais Haddar, Abdelmajid Ben Hamadou: Towards a syntactic lexicon of Arabic Verbs. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles, Toulouse (in French) 2007: Khemakhem A, Gargouri B, Abdelwahed A, Francopoulo G: Modélisation des paradigmes de fl
Read more →
Memory-hard function

In cryptography, a memory-hard function (MHF) is a function that costs a significant amount of memory to efficiently evaluate. It differs from a memory-bound function, which incurs cost by slowing down computation through memory latency. MHFs have found use in key stretching and proof of work as their increased memory requirements significantly reduce the computational efficiency advantage of custom hardware over general-purpose hardware compared to non-MHFs. == Introduction == MHFs are designed to consume large amounts of memory on a computer in order to reduce the effectiveness of parallel computing. In order to evaluate the function using less memory, a significant time penalty is incurred. As each MHF computation requires a large amount of memory, the number of function computations that can occur simultaneously is limited by the amount of available memory. This reduces the efficiency of specialised hardware, such as application-specific integrated circuits and graphics processing units, which utilise parallelisation, in computing a MHF for a large number of inputs, such as when brute-forcing password hashes or mining cryptocurrency. == Motivation and examples == Bitcoin's proof-of-work uses repeated evaluation of the SHA-256 function, but modern general-purpose processors, such as off-the-shelf CPUs, are inefficient when computing a fixed function many times over. Specialized hardware, such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) designed for Bitcoin mining, can use 30,000 times less energy per hash than x86 CPUs whilst having much greater hash rates. This led to concerns about the centralization of mining for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Because of this inequality between miners using ASICs and miners using CPUs or off-the shelf hardware, designers of later proof-of-work systems utilised hash functions for which it was difficult to construct ASICs that could evaluate the hash function significantly faster than a CPU. As memory cost is platform-independent, MHFs have found use in cryptocurrency mining, such as for Litecoin, which uses scrypt as its hash function. They are also useful in password hashing because they significantly increase the cost of trying many possible passwords against a leaked database of hashed passwords without significantly increasing the computation time for legitimate users. == Measuring memory hardness == There are various ways to measure the memory hardness of a function. One commonly seen measure is cumulative memory complexity (CMC). In a parallel model, CMC is the sum of the memory required to compute a function over every time step of the computation. Other viable measures include integrating memory usage against time and measuring memory bandwidth consumption on a memory bus. Functions requiring high memory bandwidth are sometimes referred to as "bandwidth-hard functions". == Variants == MHFs can be categorized into two different groups based on their evaluation patterns: data-dependent memory-hard functions (dMHF) and data-independent memory-hard functions (iMHF). As opposed to iMHFs, the memory access pattern of a dMHF depends on the function input, such as the password provided to a key derivation function. Examples of dMHFs are scrypt and Argon2d, while examples of iMHFs are Argon2i and catena. Many of these MHFs have been designed to be used as password hashing functions because of their memory hardness. A notable problem with dMHFs is that they are prone to side-channel attacks such as cache timing. This has resulted in a preference for using iMHFs when hashing passwords. However, iMHFs have been mathematically proven to have weaker memory hardness properties than dMHFs.
Read more →
Cryptographic Module Testing Laboratory

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

Secret London is a Facebook group started by 21-year-old Bristol University graduate, Tiffany Philippou, on 19 January 2010 in response to a Saatchi & Saatchi competition. The group grew rapidly (180,000 members as of 8 February 2010) and is composed mostly of Londoners who use the site to share suggestions and photos of London. After the group's early success, the founder announced her intention to launch a website of the same name by crowdsourcing the design and development. The website was launched on 16 February 2010. == Other secret cities == Following the initial success of Secret London, a number of other secret groups were independently started around the world, some of which already have over 100,000 users. As of 19 February 2010, the list of other groups includes: Secret Frankfurt, Secret Tel Aviv, Secret Paris, Secret New York, Secret Tokyo, Secret Toronto, Secret Los Angeles, Secret Exeter, Secret Boston, Secret Norwich, Secret Singapore, Secret Brighton, Secret Minneapolis, Secret Sydney, Secret Canberra, Secret Brisbane, Secret Wellington, Secret Christchurch, Secret Madeira, Secret Funchal, Secret Bristol and Secret Cardiff. == Controversy == Some commentators have questioned whether it possible to share secrets without compromising them, and whether sharing tips publicly will lead to over-exposure of the businesses who are recommended.
Read more →
Face Swap Live

Face Swap Live is a mobile app created by Laan Labs that enables users to swap faces with another person in real-time using the device's camera. It was released on December 14, 2015. In addition to swapping faces with another person, the app enables users to create videos using a set of bundled live filters. The app is available on iOS and Android devices. Face Swap Live was named Apple's #2 best-selling paid app in 2016.
Read more →
Malleability (cryptography)

Malleability is a property of some cryptographic algorithms. An encryption algorithm is said to be malleable if it is possible to transform a ciphertext into another ciphertext which decrypts to a related plaintext. That is, given an encryption of a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} , it is possible to generate another ciphertext which decrypts to f ( m ) {\displaystyle f(m)} , for a known function f {\displaystyle f} , without necessarily knowing or learning m {\displaystyle m} . Malleability is often an undesirable property in a general-purpose cryptosystem, since it allows an attacker to modify the contents of a message. For example, suppose that a bank uses a stream cipher to hide its financial information, and a user sends an encrypted message containing, say, "TRANSFER $0000100.00 TO ACCOUNT #199." If an attacker can modify the message on the wire, and can guess the format of the unencrypted message, the attacker could change the amount of the transaction, or the recipient of the funds, e.g. "TRANSFER $0100000.00 TO ACCOUNT #227". Malleability does not refer to the attacker's ability to read the encrypted message. Both before and after tampering, the attacker cannot read the encrypted message. On the other hand, some cryptosystems are malleable by design. In other words, in some circumstances it may be viewed as a feature that anyone can transform an encryption of m {\displaystyle m} into a valid encryption of f ( m ) {\displaystyle f(m)} (for some restricted class of functions f {\displaystyle f} ) without necessarily learning m {\displaystyle m} . Such schemes are known as homomorphic encryption schemes. A cryptosystem may be semantically secure against chosen-plaintext attacks or even non-adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA1) while still being malleable. However, security against adaptive chosen-ciphertext attacks (CCA2) is equivalent to non-malleability. == Example malleable cryptosystems == In a stream cipher, the ciphertext is produced by taking the exclusive or of the plaintext and a pseudorandom stream based on a secret key k {\displaystyle k} , as E ( m ) = m ⊕ S ( k ) {\displaystyle E(m)=m\oplus S(k)} . An adversary can construct an encryption of m ⊕ t {\displaystyle m\oplus t} for any t {\displaystyle t} , as E ( m ) ⊕ t = m ⊕ t ⊕ S ( k ) = E ( m ⊕ t ) {\displaystyle E(m)\oplus t=m\oplus t\oplus S(k)=E(m\oplus t)} . In the RSA cryptosystem, a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} is encrypted as E ( m ) = m e mod n {\displaystyle E(m)=m^{e}{\bmod {n}}} , where ( e , n ) {\displaystyle (e,n)} is the public key. Given such a ciphertext, an adversary can construct an encryption of m t {\displaystyle mt} for any t {\displaystyle t} , as E ( m ) ⋅ t e mod n = ( m t ) e mod n = E ( m t ) {\textstyle E(m)\cdot t^{e}{\bmod {n}}=(mt)^{e}{\bmod {n}}=E(mt)} . For this reason, RSA is commonly used together with padding methods such as OAEP or PKCS1. In the ElGamal cryptosystem, a plaintext m {\displaystyle m} is encrypted as E ( m ) = ( g b , m A b ) {\displaystyle E(m)=(g^{b},mA^{b})} , where ( g , A ) {\displaystyle (g,A)} is the public key. Given such a ciphertext ( c 1 , c 2 ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},c_{2})} , an adversary can compute ( c 1 , t ⋅ c 2 ) {\displaystyle (c_{1},t\cdot c_{2})} , which is a valid encryption of t m {\displaystyle tm} , for any t {\displaystyle t} . In contrast, the Cramer-Shoup system (which is based on ElGamal) is not malleable. In the Paillier, ElGamal, and RSA cryptosystems, it is also possible to combine several ciphertexts together in a useful way to produce a related ciphertext. In Paillier, given only the public key and an encryption of m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} and m 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}} , one can compute a valid encryption of their sum m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} . In ElGamal and in RSA, one can combine encryptions of m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} and m 2 {\displaystyle m_{2}} to obtain a valid encryption of their product m 1 m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}m_{2}} . Block ciphers in the cipher block chaining mode of operation, for example, are partly malleable: flipping a bit in a ciphertext block will completely mangle the plaintext it decrypts to, but will result in the same bit being flipped in the plaintext of the next block. This allows an attacker to 'sacrifice' one block of plaintext in order to change some data in the next one, possibly managing to maliciously alter the message. This is essentially the core idea of the padding oracle attack on CBC, which allows the attacker to decrypt almost an entire ciphertext without knowing the key. For this and many other reasons, a message authentication code is required to guard against any method of tampering. == Complete non-malleability == Fischlin, in 2005, defined the notion of complete non-malleability as the ability of the system to remain non-malleable while giving the adversary additional power to choose a new public key which could be a function of the original public key. In other words, the adversary shouldn't be able to come up with a ciphertext whose underlying plaintext is related to the original message through a relation that also takes public keys into account.
Read more →
Data hub

A data hub is a center of data exchange that is supported by data science, data engineering, and data warehouse technologies to interact with endpoints such as applications and algorithms. == Features == A data hub differs from a data warehouse in that it is generally unintegrated and often at different grains. It differs from an operational data store because a data hub does not need to be limited to operational data. A data hub differs from a data lake by homogenizing data and possibly serving data in multiple desired formats, rather than simply storing it in one place, and by adding other value to the data such as de-duplication, quality, security, and a standardized set of query services. A data lake tends to store data in one place for availability, and allow/require the consumer to process or add value to the data. Data hubs are ideally the "go-to" place for data within an enterprise, so that many point-to-point connections between callers and data suppliers do not need to be made, and so that the data hub organization can negotiate deliverables and schedules with various data enclave teams, rather than being an organizational free-for-all as different teams try to get new services and features from many other teams.
Read more →