Space-based data centers or orbital AI infrastructure are proposed concepts to build AI data centers in the sun-synchronous orbit or other orbits utilizing space-based solar power. Electric power has become the main bottleneck for terrestrial AI infrastructure. Space-based edge computing has historical roots in military architectures designed to bypass the latency of ground-based targeting networks. In the 1980s, the Strategic Defense Initiative's Brilliant Pebbles program first envisioned autonomous on-orbit data processing for missile defense. In 2019, the Space Development Agency (SDA) began to revive this decentralized approach through its Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA). This ambitious "sensor-to-shooter" infrastructure is treated as a prerequisite for the modern Golden Dome program, which would rely on space-based data processing to continuously track targets. == History == Early thinking about space-based computing infrastructure grew out of mid-20th-century visions for large orbital industrial systems, most notably proposals for space-based solar power, which were popularized in both technical literature and science writing by figures such as Isaac Asimov in the 1940s. These ideas emphasized exploiting the vacuum, continuous solar energy, and thermal characteristics of space to support power-intensive activities that would be difficult or inefficient on Earth. In the 21st century, advances in small satellites, reusable launch vehicles, and high-performance computing revived interest in space-based data centers, with governments and private companies exploring orbital or near-space platforms for edge computing, secure data handling, and low-latency processing of Earth-observation data. In September 2024, Y Combinator-backed Starcloud released a white paper detailing plans to build multiple gigawatts of AI compute in orbit. It was the first widely cited proposal to actually start building large orbital data centers. In 2025, Starcloud deployed an NVIDIA H100-class system and became the first company to train an LLM in space and run a version of Google Gemini in space. In March 2025, Lonestar deployed a data backup machine on the surface of the moon. In early January 2026, a team from the University of Pennsylvania presented a tether-based architecture for orbital data centers at the AIAA SciTech conference. The design relied on gravity gradient tension and solar-pressure-based passive attitude stabilization to minimize the mass of MW-scale orbital data centers. In January 2026, SpaceX filed plans with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for millions of satellites, leveraging reusable launches and Starlink integration to extend cloud and AI computing into orbit. Around the same time, Blue Origin announced the TeraWave constellation of about 5,400 satellites, designed to provide high‑throughput networking for data centers, enterprise, and government customers. Meanwhile, China announced a 200,000‑satellite constellation, focusing on state coordination, data sovereignty, and in-orbit processing for secure, time-critical applications. In February 2026, Starcloud submitted a proposal to the FCC for a constellation of up to 88,000 satellites for orbital data centers. In March, it announced intentions to be the first to mine Bitcoin in space, flying bitcoin mining ASICs on its second satellite, Starcloud-2. In May 2026, Edge Aerospace was awarded a contract by the European Space Agency under its Space Cloud program to study use cases, architectures and implementation roadmap for orbital data centers. == Feasibility == In October 2025, Nature Electronics published a study led by a research group at Nanyang Technological University on the development of carbon-neutral data centres in space. In November 2025, Google published a feasibility study on space-based data centers. The authors argued that if launch costs to low earth orbit reached US$200/kg, the launch cost for data center satellites could be cost effective relative to current energy costs for ground-based data centers. They project this may occur around 2035 if SpaceX's Starship project scales to 180 launches/year by then. == Advantages == Some sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) planes have constant sunlight in the dawn/dusk which could provide continuous solar energy. SSO is a limited resource and proper management and sharing of it is required. Solar irradiance is 36% higher in Earth orbit than on the surface No Earth weather storms or clouds, however more exposed to Solar storms. No property tax or land-use regulation. Saves space for other land use. Ample space for scalability. Won't strain the power grid. Direct access to power source without additional infrastructure. == Disadvantages == The deployment of space-based data centers raises several technical, economic, and environmental concerns. Existing launch costs are substantial and remains main cost of space infrastructure deployment Cooling is limited to heat dissipation through radiation only, which made in inefficient in comparison to convection in terrestrial data centers Space infrastructure must be designed to survive launch and to work under environment conditions of radiation, wide range of temperatures, in vacuum and in microgravity In-space assembly is on early development stage to enable deployment of mega-structures Megastructures are particularly exposed to orbital debris Solar arrays efficiency decrease 0.5% to 0.8% per year due to exposure of ultraviolet rays, space weather and orbital thermal cycles Hardware is designed for limited lifespan. Maintenance and repair in space (known as On-Orbit Servicing (OOS)) is still on early stage of practical implementation. Disposable data centre: technology obsolescence of AI data centre being a concern and difficult maintenance in space imply the single-use purpose of those space data centres. To extend lifetime, space infrastructure will require either refueling or orbit rasie by the servicer, which is going to increase its operational costs The environmental impact on Earth has its own challenges: The environmental impact of launches need to be addressed. Deployment consumes Earth resources that cannot be recovered or recycled. Computers require lots of resources, some of which are strategic. Recycling e-waste is already a challenge on Earth and extremely unlikely in space. Space debris (orbit pollution) is another sustainability challenge for space: Orbits are, like any resources, a limited physical and electromagnetic resource and available for all mankind. The accumulation of satellites on a particular orbit reduces the use of space for other purposes. A consequence of the increase of satellite in orbit is a higher risk of the runaway of space debris (see Kessler syndrome). This means some orbits could become unusable. Latency and bandwidth are constrained in space, and consumes limited electromagnetic resources. Satellite flares could inhibit ground-based and space-based observational astronomy. == Size and power generated == It would take ~1 square mile solar array in earth orbit to produce 1 gigawatt of power at 30% cell efficiency. == Companies pursuing space-based AI infrastructure == Blue Origin Cowboy Space Corporation (formerly Aetherflux) Edge Aerospace Google – Project Suncatcher Nvidia OpenAI SpaceX Starcloud
Incremental heuristic search
Incremental heuristic search algorithms combine both incremental and heuristic search to speed up searches of sequences of similar search problems, which is important in domains that are only incompletely known or change dynamically. Incremental search has been studied at least since the late 1960s. Incremental search algorithms reuse information from previous searches to speed up the current search and solve search problems potentially much faster than solving them repeatedly from scratch. Similarly, heuristic search has also been studied at least since the late 1960s. Heuristic search algorithms, often based on A, use heuristic knowledge in the form of approximations of the goal distances to focus the search and solve search problems potentially much faster than uninformed search algorithms. The resulting search problems, sometimes called dynamic path planning problems, are graph search problems where paths have to be found repeatedly because the topology of the graph, its edge costs, the start vertex or the goal vertices change over time. So far, three main classes of incremental heuristic search algorithms have been developed: The first class restarts A at the point where its current search deviates from the previous one (example: Fringe Saving A). The second class updates the h-values (heuristic, i.e. approximate distance to goal) from the previous search during the current search to make them more informed (example: Generalized Adaptive A). The third class updates the g-values (distance from start) from the previous search during the current search to correct them when necessary, which can be interpreted as transforming the A search tree from the previous search into the A search tree for the current search (examples: Lifelong Planning A, D, D Lite). All three classes of incremental heuristic search algorithms are different from other replanning algorithms, such as planning by analogy, in that their plan quality does not deteriorate with the number of replanning episodes. == Applications == Incremental heuristic search has been extensively used in robotics, where a larger number of path planning systems are based on either D (typically earlier systems) or D Lite (current systems), two different incremental heuristic search algorithms.
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.
Menu hack
A menu hack is a non-standard method of ordering food, usually at fast-food or fast casual restaurants, that offers a different result than what is explicitly stated on a menu. Menu hacks may range from a simple alternate flavor to "gaming the system" in order to obtain more food than normal. They are often spread on social media platforms such as TikTok, and are more popular with Generation Z, which has been known to customize their orders more than previous generations. Hacks are sometimes officially added to the menu after their popularity grows. However, in some cases, they have been criticized for overburdening fast food employees with outlandish requests, sparking debate as to whether certain menu hacks are unethical. The list of all possible menu hacks is called a secret menu. == History == The term "menu hack" stems from hacker culture and its tradition of overcoming previously imposed limitations. However, the tradition of ordering from a secret menu dates back to the early days of fast food. "Animal style" fries, a word of mouth menu item ordered from In-N-Out since the 1960s, was rumored to have been created by local surfers. In the Information Age, the rise of social media gave influencers the ability to communicate unique food combinations to their followers, which proved to go viral easily. Design mistakes in food ordering apps also proved to be easily exploitable. In some cases, these hacks boosted the profile of brands on social media, while in others, they caused financial harm when the company was unprepared to handle the sudden influx of unusual orders. One restaurant chain notable for the phenomenon is Chipotle Mexican Grill. A viral hack from Alexis Frost, suggesting a quesadilla with fajita vegetables inside, dipped in Chipotle vinaigrette mixed with sour cream, obtained 1.9 million views on TikTok, overloading the chain's workers, who had to work harder to prepare more vegetables and vinaigrette. Some restaurants began to deny the dish to customers, forcing them to only order meat and cheese on quesadillas. The company ultimately left the dish on the menu, but urged customers to stop ordering it via social media. When it later officially added the Fajita Quesadilla to the menu, digital sales nearly doubled. A method to order nachos, which are not officially on the menu, was also noted by customers. Starbucks is also famous for menu hacks, including the Pink Drink, a "Barbiecore" beverage in which coconut milk replaced the water in the strawberry açaí refresher. After it went viral, the company made it a permanent menu item and distributed it bottled in grocery stores. == Controversy == Menu hacks have been subject to a growing backlash, with employees stating that they "dread" younger customers due to the proliferation of unusual orders. Service industry workers, already overworked and underpaid, have called the rise of menu hacks and their difficulty to make an additional reason to unionize and demand higher wages.
Data marketplace
Data marketplace is an online platform for sharing and consuming data in the form of data assets or data products. Part of the data management stack, it aims to bring together data producers and data consumers (including business users and AI) in a single space, with the objective of increasing access to understandable, high-quality data. Included within its Data Marketplaces and Exchange (DME) category by Gartner, data marketplaces can provide data internally within an organization, externally with partners, or as open data. == Concept == Digitization has dramatically increased data volumes within organizations, with IDC predicting that by 2025 the world will contain 175 zettabytes of data. This has created a need to both manage this data and provide access to it to enable business intelligence and data analysis. However, data is often scattered within multiple systems (such as data warehouses and data lakes), and is in formats that are only understandable by technical experts, such as data scientists. According to IDC, 81% of IT leaders cite data silos as a major barrier to digital transformation. This means that data is not freely available to business users or external audiences such as partners or citizens, limiting its value, and holding back AI deployments. Data marketplaces solve this issue, providing seamless, self-service access to high-quality data in an understandable, secure and auditable manner. They break down data silos, reduce friction in data access, and enable a broader range of users, including non-technical profiles, to find, understand, and consume data autonomously. Data assets on the marketplace can be raw data, data visualizations or data products. Data marketplaces combine data management functions such as data governance with the user-friendly experience offered by e-commerce marketplaces in order to increase the usage of data. These include features such as powerful search engines, feedback, ratings, subscriptions and product description sheets. According to Gartner, data marketplaces provide infrastructure, transactional capabilities, and services for both consumers and providers of data assets. == History and timeline == Data marketplaces have evolved since they first emerged in terms of both their scope and usage. === 2000s === With the rise of the internet, data brokers began collecting, aggregating, distributing and selling personal, financial and marketing data to third parties online. Data marketplaces were deployed to monetize this data, making it discoverable and accessible to users, either through subscriptions or one-off purchases. At the same time, regulations, such as the US Open Government Initiative of 2009 and others around the world mandated greater transparency and data sharing with the public. Data sharing portals were created by public and government bodies to make this information available through self-service to all users. === 2010s === Due to the growth of big data and cloud platforms, cloud-based data exchange platforms emerged. These were offered by major infrastructure providers, and included Amazon Web Services (AWS) Data Exchange, Snowflake Data Marketplace, and the Google Cloud Platform. These platforms moved beyond simple data brokerage or open data by providing structured, catalogued data sharing between organizations. === 2020s === Driven by a need to increase internal data sharing with both business users and AI, organizations are now looking to adopt internal data marketplaces. These aim to democratize data consumption by providing seamless access for all employees and AI to trusted data, including data products, through an intuitive, e-commerce style experience. According to Gartner analyst Richa Jha, "by providing a single, governed platform for discovering, sharing, and scaling data products, data marketplaces drive productivity, collaboration, and ROI across the enterprise." == Data marketplaces within the overall data architecture == Data marketplaces provide a consumption and collaboration layer for data. That means they complement and integrate with other parts of the overall data architecture, including: === Data warehouses and data lakes === Data marketplaces connect to data sources, such as data warehouses or data lakes, to provide intuitive access to the data stored within them, enabling data to be shared and distributed to non-technical audiences. Access can be direct, with data and data products stored within the data marketplace or virtualized. === Data catalog === A data catalog provides a technical inventory of an organization's data estate. It collects technical information on all available data assets within an organization, based on metadata descriptions. This ensures traceability, and supports compliance and governance requirements. Unlike a data marketplace, a data catalog does not provide access to data, and is designed to be used by data professionals, rather than the business. This means it lacks an intuitive, understandable interface and is consequently not easily accessible by business users. === Data mesh === Data mesh is an architecture and framework for data management, first defined by Zhamak Dehghani in 2019. It aims to decentralize data ownership to delegate responsibility, empowering teams and focusing on delivering data to users in the form of self-service data products. The data marketplace is a central pillar of data mesh, providing intuitive access to these data products, and creating a collaboration space for data owners and data consumers. === Data product === Data products are high-value, consumable data assets that package high-quality data and associated tools to enable seamless usage by business users at scale. First defined by McKinsey in 2022, they have an identified owner, a service level agreement (SLA), and a reusability logic. == Core components of a data marketplace == A data marketplace typically includes specific core components: === E-commerce style interface === An e-commerce style experience that engages non-technical users, minimizes the need for training and builds confidence and trust in data. Look and feel should be customizable to incorporate corporate design guidelines to ensure consistency with other organizational applications. === Built-in data catalog === As in a standalone data catalog, this indexes all available data, based on metadata that includes type, source, owner, freshness, and quality level. === Discovery and search engine === This enables users to search, filter, explore and discover available data intuitively. As in an e-commerce marketplace, it should be intelligent, and provide relevant results based on natural language queries. === Access control and security management === Data marketplaces will contain data that needs to be protected under regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States, and sector-specific frameworks in industries such as finance and healthcare. To ensure both security and compliance while maximizing data consumption, the data marketplace should include granular access management and a full audit trail. === Semantic layer and business glossary === Different parts of the business are likely to use different terms to describe data. This leads to inconsistencies and an inability to share data across systems and teams. The semantic layer and business glossary standardize a shared vocabulary and common definitions of business indicators and concepts, providing a single language for data across the business and for AI agents. === Data governance mechanisms === These enforce corporate data governance policies, ensuring data traceability through data lineage, quality certification, usage monitoring, and continuous improvement through user feedback loops. === Collaboration features === As on an e-commerce website, a data marketplace should provide collaboration features that bring together data users and data owners. This includes the ability to rate data products, share use cases, and provide feedback to data owners, creating a community around data and supporting a data-driven culture. == Types of data marketplace == While they share the same underlying technology, data marketplaces can be deployed in three broad ways: === Internal data marketplaces === These bring together data from across an organization and make it available via self-service to employees from across the business. They aim to widen access to data and consequently to improve decision-making and reporting, increase performance and maximize efficiency. === Ecosystem data marketplaces === These extend sharing beyond a single organization, enabling multiple partners (public institutions, industry players, research bodies) to share and consume data within a governed framework. Data can be provided by all parties or simply by one organization and consumed by others. Ecosystem data marketplaces are particularly relevant in
Message queuing service
A message queueing service is a message-oriented middleware or MOM deployed in a compute cloud using software as a service model. Service subscribers access queues and or topics to exchange data using point-to-point or publish and subscribe patterns. It's important to differentiate between event-driven and message-driven (aka queue driven) services: Event-driven services (e.g. AWS SNS) are decoupled from their consumers. Whereas queue / message driven services (e.g. AWS SQS) are coupled with their consumers. Message queues can be a good buffer to handle spiky workloads but they have a finite capacity. According to Gregor Hohpe, message queues require proper mechanisms (aka flow controls) to avoid filling the queue beyond its manageable capacity and to keep the system stable. == Ordering Guarantees in Message Queues == Amazon SQS FIFO and Azure Service Bus sessions are queue-based messaging systems that provide ordering guarantees within a message group or session attempt but do not necessarily guarantee ordered delivery in cases of retries or failures. In SQS FIFO, messages in the same message group are processed in order, with subsequent messages held until the preceding message is successfully processed or moved to the dead-letter queue (DLQ). Once a message is placed in the DLQ, it is no longer retried, creating a gap in the sequence. However, the remaining messages continue to be delivered in order. Azure Service Bus sessions function similarly by maintaining ordering within a session, provided a single consumer processes messages sequentially. The implementation differs from SQS FIFO but follows the same fundamental ordering principle. In contrast, Apache Kafka is a distributed log-based messaging system that guarantees ordering within individual partitions rather than across the entire topic. Unlike queue-based systems, Kafka retains messages in a durable, append-only log, allowing multiple consumers to read at different offsets. Kafka uses manual offset management, giving consumers control over retries and failure handling. If a consumer fails to process a message, it can delay committing the offset, preventing further progress in that partition while other partitions remain unaffected. This partition-based design enables fault isolation and parallel processing while allowing ordering to be maintained within partitions, depending on consumer handling. == Vendors == Apache Kafka Apache Kafka is a distributed system consisting of servers that store and forward messages between producer client and consumer applications. IBM MQ IBM MQ offers a managed service that can be used on IBM Cloud and Amazon Web Services. Microsoft Azure Service Bus Service Bus offers queues, topics & subscriptions, and rules/actions in order to support publish-subscribe, temporal decoupling, and load balancing scenarios. Azure Service Bus is built on AMQP allowing any existing AMQP 1.0 client stack to interact with Service Bus directly or via existing .Net, Java, Node, and Python clients. Standard and Premium tiers allow for pay as you go or isolated resources at massive scale. Oracle Messaging Cloud Service This service provides a messaging solution for applications for asynchronous communication and is influenced by the Java Message Service (JMS) API specification. Any application platform that understands HTTP can also use Oracle Messaging Cloud Service through the REST interface. For Java applications, Oracle Messaging Cloud Service provides a Java library that implements and extends the JMS 1.1 interface. The Java library implements the JMS API by acting as a client of the REST API. Amazon Simple Queue Service Supports messages natively up to 256K, or up to 2GB by transmitting payload via S3. Highly scalable, durable and resilient. Provides loose-FIFO and 'at least once' delivery in order to provide massive scale. Supports REST API and optional Java Message Service client. Low latency. Utilizes Amazon Web Services. IronMQ Supports messages up to 64k; guarantees order; guarantees once only delivery; no delays retrieving messages. Supports REST API and beanstalkd open source protocol. Runs on multiple clouds including AWS and Rackspace. Scaling must be managed by user. RabbitMQ RabbitMQ is a reliable and mature messaging and streaming broker, which is easy to deploy on cloud environments, on-premises, and on your local machine. Supports AMQP, STOMP, MQTT StormMQ Open platform supports messages up to 50Mb. Uses AMQP to avoid vendor lock-in and provide language neutrality. Locate-It Option allows customers to audit the location of their data at all times and satisfy data protection principles. AnypointMQ An enterprise multi-tenant, cloud messaging service that performs advanced asynchronous messaging scenarios between applications. Anypoint MQ is fully integrated with Anypoint Platform, offering role based access control, client application management, and connectors.
Code (cryptography)
In cryptology, a code is a method used to encrypt a message that operates at the level of meaning; that is, words or phrases are converted into something else. A code might transform "change" into "CVGDK" or "cocktail lounge". The U.S. National Security Agency defined a code as "A substitution cryptosystem in which the plaintext elements are primarily words, phrases, or sentences, and the code equivalents (called "code groups") typically consist of letters or digits (or both) in otherwise meaningless combinations of identical length." A codebook is needed to encrypt, and decrypt the phrases or words. By contrast, ciphers encrypt messages at the level of individual letters, or small groups of letters, or even, in modern ciphers, individual bits. Messages can be transformed first by a code, and then by a cipher. Such multiple encryption, or "superencryption" aims to make cryptanalysis more difficult. Another comparison between codes and ciphers is that a code typically represents a letter or groups of letters directly without the use of mathematics. As such the numbers are configured to represent these three values: 1001 = A, 1002 = B, 1003 = C, ... . The resulting message, then would be 1001 1002 1003 to communicate ABC. Ciphers, however, utilize a mathematical formula to represent letters or groups of letters. For example, A = 1, B = 2, C = 3, ... . Thus the message ABC results by multiplying each letter's value by 13. The message ABC, then would be 13 26 39. Codes have a variety of drawbacks, including susceptibility to cryptanalysis and the difficulty of managing the cumbersome codebooks, so ciphers are now the dominant technique in modern cryptography. In contrast, because codes are representational, they are not susceptible to mathematical analysis of the individual codebook elements. In the example, the message 13 26 39 can be cracked by dividing each number by 13 and then ranking them alphabetically. However, the focus of codebook cryptanalysis is the comparative frequency of the individual code elements matching the same frequency of letters within the plaintext messages using frequency analysis. In the above example, the code group, 1001, 1002, 1003, might occur more than once and that frequency might match the number of times that ABC occurs in plain text messages. (In the past, or in non-technical contexts, code and cipher are often used to refer to any form of encryption). == One- and two-part codes == Codes are defined by "codebooks" (physical or notional), which are dictionaries of codegroups listed with their corresponding plaintext. Codes originally had the codegroups assigned in 'plaintext order' for convenience of the code designed, or the encoder. For example, in a code using numeric code groups, a plaintext word starting with "a" would have a low-value group, while one starting with "z" would have a high-value group. The same codebook could be used to "encode" a plaintext message into a coded message or "codetext", and "decode" a codetext back into plaintext message. In order to make life more difficult for codebreakers, codemakers designed codes with no predictable relationship between the codegroups and the ordering of the matching plaintext. In practice, this meant that two codebooks were now required, one to find codegroups for encoding, the other to look up codegroups to find plaintext for decoding. Such "two-part" codes required more effort to develop, and twice as much effort to distribute (and discard safely when replaced), but they were harder to break. The Zimmermann Telegram in January 1917 used the German diplomatic "0075" two-part code system which contained upwards of 10,000 phrases and individual words. == One-time code == A one-time code is a prearranged word, phrase or symbol that is intended to be used only once to convey a simple message, often the signal to execute or abort some plan or confirm that it has succeeded or failed. One-time codes are often designed to be included in what would appear to be an innocent conversation. Done properly they are almost impossible to detect, though a trained analyst monitoring the communications of someone who has already aroused suspicion might be able to recognize a comment like "Aunt Bertha has gone into labor" as having an ominous meaning. Famous example of one time codes include: In the Bible, Jonathan prearranges a code with David, who is going into hiding from Jonathan's father, King Saul. If, during archery practice, Jonathan tells the servant retrieving arrows "the arrows are on this side of you," David may safely return to court; if the command is "the arrows are beyond you," David must flee. "One if by land; two if by sea" in "Paul Revere's Ride" made famous in the poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow "Climb Mount Niitaka" - the signal to Japanese planes to begin the attack on Pearl Harbor During World War II the British Broadcasting Corporation's overseas service frequently included "personal messages" as part of its regular broadcast schedule. The seemingly nonsensical stream of messages read out by announcers were actually one time codes intended for Special Operations Executive (SOE) agents operating behind enemy lines. An example might be "The princess wears red shoes" or "Mimi's cat is asleep under the table". Each code message was read out twice. By such means, the French Resistance were instructed to start sabotaging rail and other transport links the night before D-day. "Over all of Spain, the sky is clear" was a signal (broadcast on radio) to start the nationalist military revolt in Spain on July 17, 1936. Sometimes messages are not prearranged and rely on shared knowledge hopefully known only to the recipients. An example is the telegram sent to U.S. President Harry Truman, then at the Potsdam Conference to meet with Soviet premier Joseph Stalin, informing Truman of the first successful test of an atomic bomb. "Operated on this morning. Diagnosis not yet complete but results seem satisfactory and already exceed expectations. Local press release necessary as interest extends great distance. Dr. Groves pleased. He returns tomorrow. I will keep you posted." == Idiot code == An idiot code is a code that is created by the parties using it. This type of communication is akin to the hand signals used by armies in the field. Example: Any sentence where 'day' and 'night' are used means 'attack'. The location mentioned in the following sentence specifies the location to be attacked. Plaintext: Attack X. Codetext: We walked day and night through the streets but couldn't find it! Tomorrow we'll head into X. An early use of the term appears to be by George Perrault, a character in the science fiction book Friday by Robert A. Heinlein: The simplest sort [of code] and thereby impossible to break. The first ad told the person or persons concerned to carry out number seven or expect number seven or it said something about something designated as seven. This one says the same with respect to code item number ten. But the meaning of the numbers cannot be deduced through statistical analysis because the code can be changed long before a useful statistical universe can be reached. It's an idiot code... and an idiot code can never be broken if the user has the good sense not to go too often to the well. Terrorism expert Magnus Ranstorp said that the men who carried out the September 11 attacks on the United States used basic e-mail and what he calls "idiot code" to discuss their plans. == Cryptanalysis of codes == While solving a monoalphabetic substitution cipher is easy, solving even a simple code is difficult. Decrypting a coded message is a little like trying to translate a document written in a foreign language, with the task basically amounting to building up a "dictionary" of the codegroups and the plaintext words they represent. One fingerhold on a simple code is the fact that some words are more common than others, such as "the" or "a" in English. In telegraphic messages, the codegroup for "STOP" (i.e., end of sentence or paragraph) is usually very common. This helps define the structure of the message in terms of sentences, if not their meaning, and this is cryptanalytically useful. Further progress can be made against a code by collecting many codetexts encrypted with the same code and then using information from other sources spies newspapers diplomatic cocktail party chat the location from where a message was sent where it was being sent to (i.e., traffic analysis) the time the message was sent, events occurring before and after the message was sent the normal habits of the people sending the coded messages etc. For example, a particular codegroup found almost exclusively in messages from a particular army and nowhere else might very well indicate the commander of that army. A codegroup that appears in messages preceding an attack on a particular location may very well stand for that location. Cribs can be an immediate giveaway to the definiti