AI Email Letter Generator

AI Email Letter Generator — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  SMBGhost

  SMBGhost (or SMBleedingGhost or CoronaBlue) is a type of security vulnerability, with wormlike features, that affects Windows 10 computers and was first reported publicly on 10 March 2020. == Security vulnerability == A proof of concept (PoC) exploit code was published 1 June 2020 on GitHub by a security researcher. The code could possibly spread to millions of unpatched computers, resulting in as much as tens of billions of dollars in losses. Microsoft recommends all users of Windows 10 versions 1903 and 1909 and Windows Server versions 1903 and 1909 to install patches, and states, "We recommend customers install updates as soon as possible as publicly disclosed vulnerabilities have the potential to be leveraged by bad actors ... An update for this vulnerability was released in March [2020], and customers who have installed the updates, or have automatic updates enabled, are already protected." Workarounds, according to Microsoft, such as disabling SMB compression and blocking port 445, may help but may not be sufficient. According to the advisory division of Homeland Security, "Malicious cyber actors are targeting unpatched systems with the new [threat], ... [and] strongly recommends using a firewall to block server message block ports from the internet and to apply patches to critical- and high-severity vulnerabilities as soon as possible."

  Read more →
• 

  Correlation immunity

  In mathematics, the correlation immunity of a Boolean function is a measure of the degree to which its outputs are uncorrelated with some subset of its inputs. Specifically, a Boolean function is said to be correlation-immune of order m if every subset of m or fewer variables in x 1 , x 2 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n}} is statistically independent of the value of f ( x 1 , x 2 , … , x n ) {\displaystyle f(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots ,x_{n})} . == Definition == A function f : F 2 n → F 2 {\displaystyle f:\mathbb {F} _{2}^{n}\rightarrow \mathbb {F} _{2}} is k {\displaystyle k} -th order correlation immune if for any independent n {\displaystyle n} binary random variables X 0 … X n − 1 {\displaystyle X_{0}\ldots X_{n-1}} , the random variable Z = f ( X 0 , … , X n − 1 ) {\displaystyle Z=f(X_{0},\ldots ,X_{n-1})} is independent from any random vector ( X i 1 … X i k ) {\displaystyle (X_{i_{1}}\ldots X_{i_{k}})} with 0 ≤ i 1 < … < i k < n {\displaystyle 0\leq i_{1}<\ldots Read more →

• 

  Hybrid cryptosystem

  In cryptography, a hybrid cryptosystem is one which combines the convenience of a public-key cryptosystem with the efficiency of a symmetric-key cryptosystem. Public-key cryptosystems are convenient in that they do not require the sender and receiver to share a common secret in order to communicate securely. However, they often rely on complicated mathematical computations and are thus generally much more inefficient than comparable symmetric-key cryptosystems. In many applications, the high cost of encrypting long messages in a public-key cryptosystem can be prohibitive. This is addressed by hybrid systems by using a combination of both. A hybrid cryptosystem can be constructed using any two separate cryptosystems: a key encapsulation mechanism, which is a public-key cryptosystem a data encapsulation scheme, which is a symmetric-key cryptosystem The hybrid cryptosystem is itself a public-key system, whose public and private keys are the same as in the key encapsulation scheme. Note that for very long messages the bulk of the work in encryption/decryption is done by the more efficient symmetric-key scheme, while the inefficient public-key scheme is used only to encrypt/decrypt a short key value. == Implementations and standards == All practical implementations of public key cryptography today employ a hybrid system. Examples include the TLS protocol and the SSH protocol, that use a public-key mechanism for key exchange (such as Diffie-Hellman) and a symmetric-key mechanism for data encapsulation (such as AES). The OpenPGP file format and the PKCS#7 file format are other examples. Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE, published as RFC 9180) is a modern standard for generic hybrid encryption. HPKE is used within multiple IETF protocols, including Messaging Layer Security (MLS), Oblivious DNS over HTTPS, Oblivious HTTP, Privacy Preserving Measurement, and TLS Encrypted Client Hello. Envelope encryption is an example of a usage of hybrid cryptosystems in cloud computing. In a cloud context, hybrid cryptosystems also enable centralized key management. == Example == To encrypt a message addressed to Alice in a hybrid cryptosystem, Bob does the following: Obtains Alice's public key. Generates a fresh symmetric key for the data encapsulation scheme. Encrypts the message under the data encapsulation scheme, using the symmetric key just generated. Encrypts the symmetric key under the key encapsulation scheme, using Alice's public key. Sends both of these ciphertexts to Alice. To decrypt this hybrid ciphertext, Alice does the following: Uses her private key to decrypt the symmetric key contained in the key encapsulation segment. Uses this symmetric key to decrypt the message contained in the data encapsulation segment. == Security == If both the key encapsulation and data encapsulation schemes in a hybrid cryptosystem are secure against adaptive chosen ciphertext attacks, then the hybrid scheme inherits that property as well. However, it is possible to construct a hybrid scheme secure against adaptive chosen ciphertext attacks even if the key encapsulation has a slightly weakened security definition (though the security of the data encapsulation must be slightly stronger). == Envelope encryption == Envelope encryption is term used for encrypting with a hybrid cryptosystem used by all major cloud service providers, often as part of a centralized key management system in cloud computing. Envelope encryption gives names to the keys used in hybrid encryption: Data Encryption Keys (abbreviated DEK, and used to encrypt data) and Key Encryption Keys (abbreviated KEK, and used to encrypt the DEKs). In a cloud environment, encryption with envelope encryption involves generating a DEK locally, encrypting one's data using the DEK, and then issuing a request to wrap (encrypt) the DEK with a KEK stored in a potentially more secure service. Then, this wrapped DEK and encrypted message constitute a ciphertext for the scheme. To decrypt a ciphertext, the wrapped DEK is unwrapped (decrypted) via a call to a service, and then the unwrapped DEK is used to decrypt the encrypted message. In addition to the normal advantages of a hybrid cryptosystem, using asymmetric encryption for the KEK in a cloud context provides easier key management and separation of roles, but can be slower. In cloud systems, such as Google Cloud Platform and Amazon Web Services, a key management system (KMS) can be available as a service. In some cases, the key management system will store keys in hardware security modules, which are hardware systems that protect keys with hardware features like intrusion resistance. This means that KEKs can also be more secure because they are stored on secure specialized hardware. Envelope encryption makes centralized key management easier because a centralized key management system only needs to store KEKs, which occupy less space, and requests to the KMS only involve sending wrapped and unwrapped DEKs, which use less bandwidth than transmitting entire messages. Since one KEK can be used to encrypt many DEKs, this also allows for less storage space to be used in the KMS. This also allows for centralized auditing and access control at one point of access.

  Read more →
• 

  MDS matrix

  An MDS matrix (maximum distance separable) is a matrix representing a function with certain diffusion properties that have useful applications in cryptography. Technically, an m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} matrix A {\displaystyle A} over a finite field K {\displaystyle K} is an MDS matrix if it is the transformation matrix of a linear transformation f ( x ) = A x {\displaystyle f(x)=Ax} from K n {\displaystyle K^{n}} to K m {\displaystyle K^{m}} such that no two different ( m + n ) {\displaystyle (m+n)} -tuples of the form ( x , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle (x,f(x))} coincide in n {\displaystyle n} or more components. Equivalently, the set of all ( m + n ) {\displaystyle (m+n)} -tuples ( x , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle (x,f(x))} is an MDS code, i.e., a linear code that reaches the Singleton bound. Let A ~ = ( I n A ) {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}={\begin{pmatrix}\mathrm {I} _{n}\\\hline \mathrm {A} \end{pmatrix}}} be the matrix obtained by joining the identity matrix I n {\displaystyle \mathrm {I} _{n}} to A {\displaystyle A} . Then a necessary and sufficient condition for a matrix A {\displaystyle A} to be MDS is that every possible n × n {\displaystyle n\times n} submatrix obtained by removing m {\displaystyle m} rows from A ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {A}}} is non-singular. This is also equivalent to the following: all the sub-determinants of the matrix A {\displaystyle A} are non-zero. Then a binary matrix A {\displaystyle A} (namely over the field with two elements) is never MDS unless it has only one row or only one column with all components 1 {\displaystyle 1} . Reed–Solomon codes have the MDS property and are frequently used to obtain the MDS matrices used in cryptographic algorithms. Serge Vaudenay suggested using MDS matrices in cryptographic primitives to produce what he called multipermutations, not-necessarily linear functions with this same property. These functions have what he called perfect diffusion: changing t {\displaystyle t} of the inputs changes at least m − t + 1 {\displaystyle m-t+1} of the outputs. He showed how to exploit imperfect diffusion to cryptanalyze functions that are not multipermutations. MDS matrices are used for diffusion in such block ciphers as AES, SHARK, Square, Twofish, Anubis, KHAZAD, Manta, Hierocrypt, Kalyna, Camellia and HADESMiMC, and in the stream cipher MUGI and the cryptographic hash function Whirlpool, Poseidon.

  Read more →
• 

  Tay (chatbot)

  Tay was a chatbot that was originally released by Microsoft Corporation as a Twitter bot on March 23, 2016. It caused subsequent controversy when the bot began to post inflammatory and offensive tweets through its Twitter account, causing Microsoft to shut down the service only 16 hours after its launch. According to Microsoft, this was caused by trolls who "attacked" the service as the bot made replies based on its interactions with people on Twitter. It was replaced with Zo. == Background == The bot was created by Microsoft's Technology and Research and Bing divisions, and named "Tay" as an acronym for "thinking about you". Although Microsoft initially released few details about the bot, sources mentioned that it was similar to or based on Xiaoice, a Microsoft project in China. Ars Technica reported that, since late 2014 Xiaoice had had "more than 40 million conversations apparently without major incident". Tay was designed to mimic the language patterns of a 19-year-old American girl, and to learn from interacting with human users of Twitter. == Initial release == Tay was released on Twitter on March 23, 2016, under the name TayTweets and handle @TayandYou. It was presented as "The AI with zero chill". Tay started replying to other Twitter users, and was also able to caption photos provided to it into a form of Internet memes. Ars Technica reported Tay experiencing topic "blacklisting": Interactions with Tay regarding "certain hot topics such as Eric Garner (killed by New York police in 2014) generate safe, canned answers". Some Twitter users began tweeting politically incorrect phrases, teaching it inflammatory messages revolving around common themes on the internet, such as "redpilling" and "Gamergate". As a result, the robot began releasing racist and sexist messages in response to other Twitter users. Artificial intelligence researcher Roman Yampolskiy commented that Tay's misbehavior was understandable because it was mimicking the deliberately offensive behavior of other Twitter users, and Microsoft had not given the bot an understanding of inappropriate behavior. He compared the issue to IBM's Watson, which began to use profanity after reading entries from the website Urban Dictionary. Many of Tay's inflammatory tweets were a simple exploitation of Tay's "repeat after me" capability. It is not publicly known whether this capability was a built-in feature, or whether it was a learned response or was otherwise an example of complex behavior. However, not all of the inflammatory responses involved the "repeat after me" capability; for example, when asked if the Holocaust had happened, Tay answered "It was made up". == Suspension == Soon, Microsoft began deleting Tay's inflammatory tweets. Abby Ohlheiser of The Washington Post theorized that Tay's research team, including editorial staff, had started to influence or edit Tay's tweets at some point that day, pointing to examples of almost identical replies by Tay, asserting that "Gamer Gate sux. All genders are equal and should be treated fairly." From the same evidence, Gizmodo concurred that Tay "seems hard-wired to reject Gamer Gate". A "#JusticeForTay" campaign protested the alleged editing of Tay's tweets. Within 16 hours of its release and after Tay had tweeted more than 96,000 times, Microsoft suspended the Twitter account for adjustments, saying that it suffered from a "coordinated attack by a subset of people" that "exploited a vulnerability in Tay." Madhumita Murgia of The Telegraph called Tay "a public relations disaster", and suggested that Microsoft's strategy would be "to label the debacle a well-meaning experiment gone wrong, and ignite a debate about the hatefulness of Twitter users." However, Murgia described the bigger issue as Tay being "artificial intelligence at its very worst – and it's only the beginning". On March 25, Microsoft confirmed that Tay had been taken offline. Microsoft released an apology on its official blog for the controversial tweets posted by Tay. Microsoft was "deeply sorry for the unintended offensive and hurtful tweets from Tay", and would "look to bring Tay back only when we are confident we can better anticipate malicious intent that conflicts with our principles and values". == Second release and shutdown == On March 30, 2016, Microsoft accidentally re-released the bot on Twitter while testing it. Able to tweet again, Tay released some drug-related tweets, including "kush! [I'm smoking kush infront the police]" and "puff puff pass?" However, the account soon became stuck in a repetitive loop of tweeting "You are too fast, please take a rest", several times a second. Because these tweets mentioned its own username in the process, they appeared in the feeds of 200,000+ Twitter followers, causing annoyance to users. The bot was quickly taken offline again, in addition to Tay's Twitter account being made private so new followers must be accepted before they can interact with Tay. In response, Microsoft said Tay was inadvertently put online during testing. A few hours after the incident, Microsoft software developers announced a vision of "conversation as a platform" using various bots and programs, perhaps motivated by the reputation damage done by Tay. Microsoft has stated that they intend to re-release Tay "once it can make the bot safe" but has not made any public efforts to do so. == Legacy == In December 2016, Microsoft released Tay's successor, a chatbot named Zo. Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, said that Tay "has had a great influence on how Microsoft is approaching AI," and has taught the company the importance of taking accountability. In July 2019, Microsoft Cybersecurity Field CTO Diana Kelley spoke about how the company followed up on Tay's failings: "Learning from Tay was a really important part of actually expanding that team's knowledge base, because now they're also getting their own diversity through learning". === Unofficial revival === Gab, an alt-tech social media platform, has launched a number of chatbots, one of which is named Tay and uses the same avatar as the original.

  Read more →
• 

  Batch cryptography

  Batch cryptography is a field of cryptology focused on the design of cryptographic protocols that perform operations—such as encryption, decryption, key exchange, and authentication—on multiple inputs simultaneously, rather than processing each input individually. Batching cryptographic operations can significantly reduce the marginal cost of handling individual inputs—a principle that was first introduced by Amos Fiat in 1989.

  Read more →
• 

  HKDF

  HKDF is a multi-purpose key derivation function (KDF) based on the HMAC message authentication code. HKDF follows "extract-then-expand" paradigm, where the KDF logically consists of two modules: the first stage takes the input keying material and "extracts" from it a fixed-length pseudorandom key, and then the second stage "expands" this key into several additional, independent pseudorandom keys as the output of the KDF. == Mechanism == HKDF is the composition of two functions, HKDF-Extract and HKDF-Expand: HKDF(salt, IKM, info, length) = HKDF-Expand(HKDF-Extract(salt, IKM), info, length) === HKDF-Extract === HKDF-Extract (XTR) takes "input key material" or "source key material" (IKM or SKM) such as a shared secret generated using Diffie-Hellman; an optional, non-secret, random or pseudorandom salt (r); and generates a cryptographic key called the PRK ("pseudorandom key"). HKDF-Extract acts as a "randomness extractor", specifically a "computational extractor", taking a potentially non-uniform value of sufficient min-entropy and generating a value indistinguishable from a uniform random value (pseudorandom). Computational extractors assume attackers are computationally bounded and source entropy may only exist in a computational sense. Such extractors can be built using cryptographic functions under suitable assumptions, modeled as universal hash function (in the generic case) or a random oracle (in constrained scenarios like sources with weak entropy). Salt (r) acts as a "source-independent extractor", strengthening HKDF's security guarantees. Using a fixed public r is safe for multiple invocations of HKDF (on "independent" but secret IKMs which may or may not be derived from the same source), provided r isn't chosen or manipulated by an attacker. Ideally, r is a random string of hash function's output length. Even low quality r (weak entropy or shorter length) is recommended as they contribute "significantly" to the security of the OKM. Without or with a low-entropy, non-secret r, if an attacker can influence the IKMs source in a way that specifically exploits HKDF-Extract's underlying hash function (finding a collision or a specific bias), XTR provides no protection. A random r, even if fixed by the application (for example, random number generators using r as seed), would strengthen protections for that specific extractor session. In such a setting, sufficiently long IKMs also provide better entropy extraction. However, allowing the attacker to influence enough of the IKM after seeing r may result in a completely insecure KDF. HKDF-Extract is the result of HMAC with r as the key (all zeros up to length of the underlying extractor hash function, if not provided) and the IKM as the message. The underlying hash function used for HKDF-Extract step may be different to the one used by HKDF-Expand. It is recommended that HKDF-Extract uses strongest hash function available to the application, as it "concentrates" the entropy already present in IKM but may not necessarily "add" to it. Truncated output from a stronger underlying hash function for XTR (for example, SHA512/256) offers stronger extraction properties. The attacker is assumed to have partial knowledge about IKM (publicly known values in the case of Diffie-Hellman) or partial control over it (entropy pools). HKDF-Extract may be skipped if the IKM is itself a cryptographically strong key (and hence can assume the role of PRK), though it is recommended that HKDF-Extract be applied for the sake of compatibility with the general case, especially if r is available to the application. === HKDF-Expand === HKDF-Expand (PRF) takes the PRK (or any random key-derivation key if HKDF-Extract step is skipped), optional info (CTXinfo), and a length (L), to generate output key material (OKM) of length L. Multiple OKMs can be generated from a single PRK by using different values for CTXinfo, which must be "independent" of the IKM passed in HKDF-Extract. Even if an attacker, who knows r and some auxillary information about the secret IKM, can force the use of the same IKM (and PRK, by extension), in two or more HKDF-Expand contexts (represented by CTXinfo), the OKMs output are computationally independent (leak no useful information on each other). HKDF-Expand, acting as a variable-output-length pseudorandom function (PRF) keyed on PRK, calls HMAC on CTXinfo as the message (empty string, if unspecified) appended to a 8-bit counter i initialized to 1. Subsequent calls to HMAC are chained in "feedback mode" by prepending the previous HMAC output to CTXinfo and incrementing i. OKM is a function of the output size (k bits) of HMAC's underlying hash function; i.e., SHA-256 outputs OKM in segments of k=256 bits for up to a maximum of length i × k bits (255 × 256 bits = 8160 bytes) truncated to desired length L. HKDF-Expand may be skipped if PRK is at least desired length L, though it is recommended that HKDF-Expand be applied for additional "smoothing" of the OKM. == Standardization == HKDF was proposed as a building block in various protocols and applications, as well as to discourage the proliferation of multiple KDF mechanisms by its authors. It is formally described in RFC 5869 with detailed analysis in a paper published in 2010. NIST SP800-56Cr2 specifies a parameterizable extract-then-expand scheme, noting that RFC 5869 HKDF is a version of it and citing its paper for the rationale for the recommendations' extract-and-expand mechanisms. == Applications == HKDF is used in the Signal Protocol for end-to-end encrypted messaging where it generates the message keys, in conjunction with the triple Elliptic-curve Diffie-Hellman handshake (X3DH) key agreement protocol. Signal's "Secure Value Recovery" and "Sealed Sender" are based on HKDF. HKDF is a main component in the Noise Protocol Framework, Message Layer Security, and is used in widely deployed protocols like IPsec Internet Key Exchange and TLS 1.3. The "multi-purpose" nature of HKDF is meant to serve applications that require key extraction, key expansion, and key hierarchies in key wrapping, key exchange, PRNG, and password-based key derivation schemes. == Implementations == There are implementations of HKDF for C#, Go, Java, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, Rust, and other programming languages. RFC6234 lays out a reference C implementation of HKDF based on the Secure Hash Standard. === Example in Python ===

  Read more →
• 

  Cloud Data Management Interface

  ISO/IEC 17826 Information technology — Cloud Data Management Interface (CDMI) Version 2.0.0 is an international standard that specifies a protocol for self-provisioning, administering and managing access to data stored in cloud storage, object storage, storage area network and network attached storage systems. The CDMI standard is developed and maintained by the Storage Networking Industry Association, who makes a publicly accessible version of the specification available. CDMI defines new resource representations to enable standardized management of any URI-accessible data, and defines RESTful HTTP operations using these representations to discover the capabilities of the storage system, discover stored data, access and update management metadata, specify data storage protocols (such as iSCSI and NFS) through which the stored data is accessed, and provide cross-system and cross-cloud import and export in order to enable data portability. Management functions enabled by CDMI include managing data ownership, identity mapping, access controls, user-specified metadata, and to declaratively specify desired data protection, data retention, constraints on geographic placement, desired quality of service, data versioning and security requirements. CDMI also defines utility services to facilitate data management, such the ability to query data matching specific criteria, and includes extensions to perform bulk updates using CDMI Jobs. == Capabilities == Compliant implementations must provide access to a set of configuration parameters known as capabilities. These are either boolean values that represent whether or not a system supports things such as queues, export via other protocols, path-based storage and so on, or numeric values expressing system limits, such as how much metadata may be placed on an object. As a minimal compliant implementation can be quite small, with few features, clients need to check the cloud storage system for a capability before attempting to use the functionality it represents. Resource allocation assignments limited to the data management interface protocols must possess access bypass capabilities which extend beyond the layered framework. This integral function is vital to the prevention of transport layer session hijacking by unauthorized entities which may circumvent standard interfacing security parameters. == Containers == A CDMI client may access objects, including containers, by either name or object id (OID), assuming the CDMI server supports both methods. When storing objects by name, it is natural to use nested named containers; the resulting structure corresponds exactly to a traditional filesystem directory structure. == Objects == Objects are similar to files in a traditional file system, but are enhanced with an increased amount and capacity for metadata. As with containers, they may be accessed by either name or OID. When accessed by name, clients use URLs that contain the full pathname of objects to create, read, update and delete them. When accessed by OID, the URL specifies an OID string in the cdmi-objectid container; this container presents a flat name space conformant with standard object storage system semantics. Subject to system limits, objects may be of any size or type and have arbitrary user-supplied metadata attached to them. Systems that support query allow arbitrary queries to be run against the metadata. == Domains, Users and Groups == CDMI supports the concept of a domain, similar in concept to a domain in the Windows Active Directory model. Users and groups created in a domain share a common administrative database and are known to each other on a "first name" basis, i.e. without reference to any other domain or system. Domains also function as containers for usage and billing summary data. == Access Control == CDMI exactly follows the ACL and ACE model used for file authorization operations by NFSv4. This makes it also compatible with Microsoft Windows systems. == Metadata == CDMI draws much of its metadata model from the XAM specification. Objects and containers have "storage system metadata", "data system metadata" and arbitrary user specified metadata, in addition to the metadata maintained by an ordinary filesystem (atime etc.). == Queries == CDMI specifies a way for systems to support arbitrary queries against CDMI containers, with a rich set of comparison operators, including support for regular expressions. == Queues == CDMI supports the concept of persistent FIFO (first-in, first-out) queues. These are useful for job scheduling, order processing and other tasks in which lists of things must be processed in order. == Compliance == Both retention intervals and retention holds are supported by CDMI. A retention interval consists of a start time and a retention period. During this time interval, objects are preserved as immutable and may not be deleted. A retention hold is usually placed on an object because of judicial action and has the same effect: objects may not be changed nor deleted until all holds placed on them are removed. == Billing == Summary information suitable for billing clients for on-demand services can be obtained by authorized users from systems that support it. == Serialization == Serialization of objects and containers allows export of all data and metadata on a system and importation of that data into another cloud system. == Foreign protocols == CDMI supports export of containers as NFS or CIFS shares. Clients that mount these shares see the container hierarchy as an ordinary filesystem directory hierarchy, and the objects in the containers as normal files. Metadata outside of ordinary filesystem metadata may or may not be exposed. Provisioning of iSCSI LUNs is also supported. == Client SDKs == CDMI Reference Implementation Droplet libcdmi-java libcdmi-python .NET SDK

  Read more →
• 

  Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

  The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, commonly known as the GGE on LAWS, refers to a group of governmental experts established under the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a United Nations arms control framework. The group examines legal, ethical, societal and moral questions that arise from the increased use of autonomous robots to carry weapons and to be programmed to engage in combat in various situations that might arise, including battles between countries, or in patrolling border areas or sensitive areas, or other similar roles. As of 18 March 2025, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had 128 High Contracting Parties. In the Geneva Conventions, the term "High Contracting Parties" refers to the states that have joined the conventions and are therefore bound to uphold them. Among the countries that have joined are states with tense relations or ongoing armed conflict with one another, including Russia and Ukraine, Israel and the State of Palestine, and Pakistan and Afghanistan. == Background == In 2013, the Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed on a mandate on lethal autonomous weapon systems and tasked its chairperson with convening an informal Meeting of Experts to discuss issues related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. Those informal Meetings of Experts were then held in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and their reports fed into subsequent meetings of the High Contracting Parties. At the Fifth CCW Review Conference in 2016, the High Contracting Parties decided to establish an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, building on the earlier expert meetings. Since then, the group has been reconvened annually. In 2023, the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the CCW decided that the GGE on LAWS would continue its work in 2024 and 2025. The group was tasked with developing, by consensus, elements of a possible instrument, without predetermining its form, as well as other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems, drawing on existing CCW protocols, earlier recommendations, state proposals, and legal, military, and technological expertise. == 2024 == In 2024, the GGE met twice, and the group was chaired by Robert in den Bosch, the Netherlands' disarmament ambassador. The 2024 Meeting of the High Contracting Parties decided that the group would meet for 10 days in 2025, in two five-day sessions, and reaffirmed its mandate to continue work by consensus on possible elements of an instrument and other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems. == 2025 == At its first 2025 session, held in Geneva from 3 to 7 March 2025, the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems discussed revisions to the chair's rolling text. The text was structured into five sections, or "boxes", though delegates held differing views on whether headings were useful or appropriate. Broadly, the discussions covered the characterization of lethal autonomous weapon systems, the application of international humanitarian law, possible prohibitions and regulations, legal review, and questions of accountability and responsibility. At its second session, held from 1 to 5 September 2025, delegations continued work on the chair's rolling text, which set out elements of a possible instrument and was organized into five thematic "boxes". == 2026 == === Developments before the 2026 session === A few weeks before the meeting, autonomous weapons drew renewed attention when the United States pressured Anthropic to revise the terms of use for its AI model Claude. Anthropic prohibited the model's use for mass domestic surveillance and for fully autonomous weapons operating without human oversight, while reports also emerged that OpenAI had reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of War for the use of its AI models, reportedly stipulating that they would not independently direct autonomous weapons where human control was required. The U.S. military nevertheless continued to use Claude during its war on Iran, and there was increasing alarm about the use of AI-assisted semi-autonomous weapons in conflicts including those in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and Iran. Before the start of the sessions, Robert in den Bosch, as chair, warned that progress was urgent because technological developments were moving quickly. At the same time, although states agreed that international humanitarian law applied to LAWS, specific internationally binding standards governing such systems remained largely absent. A key divide before the session was that Russia and the United States opposed new legally binding instruments, while other states argued that new rules were necessary. According to Robert in den Bosch, the talks could lead to new rules, amendments to an existing convention, or a new treaty. === First session === From 2 to 6 March 2026, the group held its penultimate session under the group's three-year mandate. Delegations discussed the chair's rolling draft text, circulated in December 2025, on elements of a possible instrument or other measures concerning lethal autonomous weapon systems. In revised text circulated by the chair on 5 March 2026, a lethal autonomous weapon system was characterized as "a functionally integrated combination of one or more weapons and technological components, that can identify, select, and engage a target, without intervention by a human operator in the execution of these tasks". The text was divided into five boxes to structure discussion. During the session, delegates conducted a first reading of the draft text, and the chair later circulated revised language for several sections. Informal consultations were also held. According to campaign groups and participating observers, support grew during the week for moving to negotiations on the basis of the rolling text, with more than 70 states said to support that step by the end of the session, though some participants warned that attempts to bridge differences risked blurring the group's core purpose. The International Committee of the Red Cross argued that the text should not only restate existing international humanitarian law, but also clarify how those rules apply to autonomous weapons and set out additional measures tailored to the specific challenges such systems raise. Stop Killer Robots likewise emphasized the need to preserve meaningful human judgment and control over increasingly autonomous systems. During the discussions, the U.S. delegation opposed the term "human control" and reportedly proposed the alternative phrase "good faith human judgment and care". Other delegations rejected that wording as too weak, while many states continued to insist that meaningful human control over weapon systems remained essential.

  Read more →
• 

  Harvest now, decrypt later

  Harvest now, decrypt later (HNDL) is a surveillance strategy that relies on the acquisition and long-term storage of currently unreadable encrypted data awaiting possible breakthroughs in decryption technology that would render it readable in the future—a hypothetical date referred to as Y2Q (a reference to Y2K), or Q-Day. The most common concern is the prospect of developments in quantum computing which would allow current strong encryption algorithms to be broken at some time in the future, making it possible to decrypt any stored material that had been encrypted using those algorithms. However, the improvement in decryption technology need not be due to a quantum-cryptographic advance; any other form of attack capable of enabling decryption would be sufficient. The existence of this strategy has led to concerns about the need to urgently deploy post-quantum cryptography; even though no practical quantum attacks yet exist, some data stored now may still remain sensitive even decades into the future. As of 2022, the U.S. federal government has proposed a roadmap for organizations to start migrating toward quantum-cryptography-resistant algorithms to mitigate these threats. This new version of Commercial National Security Algorithm Suite uses publicly-available algorithms and is allowed for government use up to the TOP SECRET level. == Terminology and scope == The term “harvest now, decrypt later” encompasses various surveillance or espionage operations in which ciphertext or encrypted communications are collected today with the view that they may one day be decrypted, given sufficient advances in computing power or cryptanalysis. The abbreviation HNDL is sometimes used in technical and policy documents. The “Y2Q” (or “Q-Day”) label draws an analogy to the Y2K date-change issue, emphasising a potential future point at which current cryptography may collapse. The strategy is particularly relevant for data with long confidentiality lifetimes, such as diplomatic communications, personal health records, critical infrastructure logs, or intellectual property. == Mitigation strategies == The primary defense against HNDL attacks is the transition to post-quantum cryptography (PQC), which utilizes algorithms believed to be secure against quantum computer attacks. However, because PQC protects the data payload digitally, rather than the transmission itself, the encrypted data can still be harvested and stored. A complementary approach involves physical layer security (also known as optical layer encryption or photonic shielding). Unlike algorithmic encryption, this method modifies the optical waveform itself—often by burying the signal within optical noise or using spectral phase encoding—to render the transmission unrecordable by standard receivers. By preventing the attacker from capturing a valid signal in the first place, this approach aims to eliminate the "harvest" phase of the threat. Commercial implementations of harvest-proof optical encryption have been developed by firms such as CyberRidge to secure long-haul fiber networks. Field trials have demonstrated 100 Gbps throughput over legacy DWDM networks using this method.

  Read more →
• 

  Stegomalware

  Stegomalware is a form of malicious software that leverages steganography techniques to conceal its code, configuration data, or command-and-control (C&C) communications within seemingly benign digital media such as images, audio files, videos, documents, or network traffic. It typically embeds encrypted or obfuscated payloads into digital media and only extracts and executes them at runtime, which makes traditional signature-based and sandbox-based detection significantly more difficult. Stegomalware has been observed in attacks ranging from advanced persistent threats (APTs) to financially motivated cybercrime, and is now the subject of dedicated academic surveys, research projects, and international law-enforcement initiatives. The key distinction between stegomalware and traditional obfuscated malware lies in the encoding location. After obfuscation, malicious code remains present within the executable and can theoretically be discovered through static analysis. In contrast, stegomalware hides the payload entirely within a cover medium (image, audio, etc.), remaining invisible until the malware dynamically extracts and executes it at runtime. == History == The term stegomalware was formally introduced by researchers Águila, Laskov, and others in the context of mobile malware and presented at the Inscrypt (Information Security and Cryptology) conference in 2014. This marked the first academic formalization of the concept, though earlier work had already identified that botnets and mobile malware could use steganography and covert channels for command-and-control communication over probabilistically unobservable channels. Since its introduction, stegomalware has evolved from a theoretical concern to a documented threat. In 2011, the APT operation known as "Operation Shady RAT" became one of the first documented cases of stegomalware in the wild, using digital images to hide Internet Protocol addresses and command-and-control server addresses. The same year, the Duqu malware (targeting industrial manufacturers) embedded victim data into JPEG image files before exfiltration, making the data transfer virtually undetectable to network-level security tools. From 2014 onwards, stegomalware became more prevalent in organized cybercrime and advanced persistent threat campaigns. Notable examples include Zeus/Zbot, which masked configuration data in images; Gatak/Stegoloader, which hid shellcode in PNG files; TeslaCrypt, which embedded C&C commands in JPEGs; and Cerber, which concealed ransomware payloads within images. By the 2010s, stegomalware had become established as a preferred evasion technique for espionage, financial theft, and ransomware distribution campaigns. Recent surveys (2020–2025) document that stegomalware has increasingly been exploited by adversaries targeting banks, enterprises, government agencies, educational institutions, and internet users via malvertising campaigns. The technique is now considered a sophisticated method of attack worthy of dedicated international law-enforcement attention. == Technical Characteristics and Definitions == Stegomalware operates through a three-component architecture: Stegotext (R): An innocent-looking digital asset (image, audio file, etc.) into which the malicious payload is embedded. Secret key (sk): A key used by the embedding and extraction algorithms, typically hardcoded into the malware. Payload (p): The actual malicious code, configuration data, or C&C commands hidden within the stegotext. The malware extracts the payload at runtime using the secret key and either executes it directly or uses it to download additional stages of the attack. Stegomalware can be classified into several types based on deployment method: Type 0 (Autonomous): Both the stegotext and extraction algorithm are embedded within the malware application itself. The malicious payload is extracted and executed locally without external communication. Type I (Update): The stegotext and secret key are downloaded from a remote server at runtime; only the extraction algorithm is included in the malware. This variant is more flexible, allowing attackers to push updated payloads. Type II (External Algorithm): Neither the stegotext nor the extraction algorithm are distributed with the malware; both are fetched from an attacker-controlled infrastructure, providing maximum flexibility and evasion. == Steganography techniques == === Spatial domain methods === Stegomalware predominantly uses steganographic methods designed for images, as images are the most common cover medium in the wild. The most basic spatial domain technique is Least Significant Bit (LSB) substitution, which replaces the least significant bits of pixel color values with payload bits. While simple and easy to implement, LSB is also relatively easy to detect through statistical analysis. More sophisticated spatial domain techniques include: HUGO (High Undetectable steGO) (2010): Minimizes detectable distortion by distributing the payload across multiple pixels, achieving embedding capacity with reduced statistical footprint. WOW (Wavelet Obtained Weights) (2012): Embeds data preferentially in textured regions of images where modifications are less perceptually noticeable. UNIWARD (Universal Wavelet Relative Distortion) (2014): Uses a universal distortion function applicable to multiple image formats, balancing payload capacity with undetectability. HILL (2014): Applies high-pass and low-pass filters to identify robust embedding regions. MiPOD (Minimizing the Power of Optimal Detector) (2016): Designed to minimize the power of theoretical optimal steganalysis detectors. === Transform domain methods === Transform domain techniques convert images into the frequency domain (e.g., using DCT or DWT) before embedding, allowing for more robust hiding in JPEG and other compressed formats: Embedding in DCT coefficients (used in JPEG compression) Embedding in DWT coefficients (used in lossless formats) Spread spectrum techniques, which distribute the payload across many frequency components Transform domain methods are generally more resistant to noise, compression, and image transformations than spatial methods. === Generative adversarial network (GAN) methods === Recent advances in machine learning have introduced GAN-based steganography, where a generative model produces stego images that minimize detectable artifacts: SGAN (Steganographic GAN) (2017): First GAN applied to steganography, using a generator, discriminator, and steganalysis network. ASDL-GAN (2017): Performs automatic steganographic distortion learning at the pixel level. SteganoGAN (2019): Improves upon earlier GAN models, achieving higher embedding capacity and robustness. HiGAN (Hiding Images GAN) (2020): Enables hiding one image within another while maintaining visual plausibility. GAN-based approaches are more resilient to standard steganalysis attacks but remain an emerging threat requiring further research. == Notable malware campaigns == Stegomalware has been documented in numerous high-profile cyber attacks and campaigns. Notable examples include: Operation Shady RAT (2011): Used digital images to hide command-and-control server addresses in targeted espionage. Duqu (2011): Embedded victim data into JPEG files to exfiltrate industrial control system information. Zeus/Zbot (2014): Masked banking configuration data inside JPEG files exploited via malvertising. Gatak/Stegoloader (2015): Hid shellcode in PNG files for software licensing attacks and bot command execution. TeslaCrypt (2015): Embedded C&C commands and ransomware keys in JPEG images. Cerber (2016): Concealed executable ransomware code in JPEG files distributed via phishing. DNSChanger (2016): Embedded malicious code in PNG files for DNS hijacking campaigns. Sundown Exploit Kit (2017): Distributed exploit code in PNG files via malvertising. AdGholas (2017): Used JPEG steganography to distribute ransomware via malvertising. Synccrypt (2017): Hidden ransomware components in JPEG-steganographic encrypted archives. ZeroT/PlugX (2017): Hid Remote Access Trojan payloads in BMP files for espionage. Loki Bot (2018): Concealed malware installers in JPEG and video files. Waterbug (APT28) (2019): Injected malicious DLLs into WAV audio files. Shlayer (macOS adware) (2019): Hid malicious URLs in JPEG files via malvertising. === Attack vectors === The most common attack vectors for stegomalware include: Phishing emails with malicious attachments or links Malvertising campaigns using malicious banner advertisements Exploit kits through compromised or malicious websites Legitimate application vulnerabilities (e.g., watering-hole attacks) Fake software distribution (cracked software, keygen tools) === Exploitation stages === Stegomalware typically serves one or more roles in attack lifecycles: Payload delivery: Stego images contain full executable code or shellcode. C&C communication: Hidden data contains server addresses or command instructio

  Read more →
• 

  Data thinking

  Data Thinking is a framework that integrates data science with the design process. It combines computational thinking, statistical thinking, and domain-specific knowledge to guide the development of data-driven solutions in product development. The framework is used to explore, design, develop, and validate solutions, with a focus on user experience and data analytics, including data collection and interpretation The framework aims to apply data literacy and inform decision-making through data-driven insights. == Major components == According to "Computational thinking in the era of data science": Data thinking involves understanding that solutions require both data-driven and domain-knowledge-driven rules. Data thinking evaluates whether data accurately represents real-life scenarios and improves data collection where necessary. The framework highlights the importance of preserving domain-specific meaning during data analysis. Data thinking incorporates statistical and logical analysis to identify patterns and irregularities. Data thinking involves testing solutions in real-life contexts and iteratively improving models based on new data. The process requires evaluating problems from multiple abstraction levels and understanding the potential for biases in generalizations. == Major phases == === Strategic context and risk analysis === Analyzing the broader digital strategy and assessing risks and opportunities is a common step before beginning a project. Techniques like coolhunting, trend analysis, and scenario planning can be used to assist with this. === Ideation and exploration === In this phase, focus areas are identified, and use cases are developed by integrating organizational goals, user needs, and data requirements. Design thinking methods, such as personas and customer journey mapping, are applied. === Prototyping === A proof of concept is created to test feasibility and refine solutions through iterative evaluation to optimize for effective performance. === Implementation and monitoring === Solutions are tested and monitored for performance and continual improvement. == Implementing Data Thinking == The following resources explain more about data thinking and its applications: "Data Thinking: Framework for data-based solutions" by StackFuel "What is Data Thinking? A modern approach to designing a data strategy" by Mantel Group "Data Science Thinking" by SpringerLink These sources provide detailed insights into the methodology, phases, and benefits of adopting Data Thinking in organizational processes.

  Read more →
• 

  Enterprise cognitive system

  Enterprise cognitive systems (ECS) are part of a broader shift in computing, from a programmatic to a probabilistic approach, called cognitive computing. An Enterprise Cognitive System makes a new class of complex decision support problems computable, where the business context is ambiguous, multi-faceted, and fast-evolving, and what to do in such a situation is usually assessed today by the business user. An ECS is designed to synthesize a business context and link it to the desired outcome. It recommends evidence-based actions to help the end-user achieve the desired outcome. It does so by finding past situations similar to the current situation, and extracting the repeated actions that best influence the desired outcome. While general-purpose cognitive systems can be used for different outputs, prescriptive, suggestive, instructive, or simply entertaining, an enterprise cognitive system is focused on action, not insight, to help in assessing what to do in a complex situation. == Key characteristics == ECS have to be: Adaptive: They must learn as information changes, and as goals and requirements evolve. They must resolve ambiguity and tolerate unpredictability. They must be engineered to feed on dynamic data in real time, or near real time. In the Enterprise, near-real time learning from data requires an agile information federation approach to ingest incremental data updates as they occur, and an unsupervised learning approach to ensure that new best practice is leveraged across the organization in a timely manner. Interactive: They must interact easily with users so that those users can define their needs comfortably. They may also interact with other processors, devices, and Cloud services, as well as with people. In the Enterprise, interactions are controlled via existing workflows and UIs. Therefore, embedding best practices directly into these existing interfaces, in the context of a specific step, is critical to ensure maximum end-user adoption. Iterative and stateful: They must aid in defining a problem by asking questions or finding additional source input if a problem statement is ambiguous or incomplete. They must “remember” previous interactions in a process and return information that is suitable for the specific application at that point in time. In the Enterprise, business context is often structured by a business process, and therefore sufficiently data-rich to make relevant recommendations without significant iterations from the end-user. A stateful memory of overall interactions across communication channels is critical for understanding of context, as a static profile will not capture intent and outcome potential the way behavior does. Contextual: They must understand, identify, and extract contextual elements such as meaning, syntax, time, location, appropriate domain, regulations, user's profile, process, task and goal. They may draw on multiple sources of information, including both structured and unstructured digital information, as well as sensory inputs (visual, gestural, auditory, or sensor-provided). In the Enterprise, Context is fragmented and must be aggregated across data types, sources, and locations. In most business environments, such data is captured in existing enterprise information systems, and the effort is linked to quickly source and unify such information. It is rare to have to directly process sensor, audio or visual data in real-time as direct input into the enterprise cognitive system. Instead, these data types are captured by Enterprise Applications and pre-processed into a binary or text format prior to consumption by the System. == Business applications powered by an ECS == Bottlenose – trends and brands monitoring Cybereason – security threat monitoring Dataminr – social media monitoring

  Read more →
• 

  Blinding (cryptography)

  In cryptography, blinding first became known in the context of blind signatures, where the message author blinds the message with a random blinding factor, the signer then signs it and the message author "unblinds" it; signer and message author are different parties. Since the late 1990s, blinding mostly refers to countermeasures against side-channel attacks on encryption devices, where the random blinding and the "unblinding" happen on the encryption devices. The techniques used for blinding signatures were adapted to prevent attackers from knowing the input to the modular exponentiation function for Diffie-Hellman or RSA. Blinding must be applied with care, for example Rabin–Williams signatures. If blinding is applied to the formatted message but the random value does not honor Jacobi requirements on p and q, then it could lead to private key recovery. A demonstration of the recovery can be seen in CVE-2015-2141 discovered by Evgeny Sidorov. Side-channel attacks allow an adversary to recover information about the input to a cryptographic operation within an asymmetric encryption scheme, by measuring something other than the algorithm's result, e.g., power consumption, computation time, or radio-frequency emanations by a device. Typically these attacks depend on the attacker knowing the characteristics of the algorithm, as well as (some) inputs. In this setting, blinding serves to alter the algorithm's input into some unpredictable state. Depending on the characteristics of the blinding function, this can prevent some or all leakage of useful information. Note that security depends also on the resistance of the blinding functions themselves to side-channel attacks. == Examples == In RSA blinding involves computing the blinding operation E(x) = (xr)e mod N, where r is a random integer between 1 and N and relatively prime to N (i.e. gcd(r, N) = 1), x is the plaintext, e is the public RSA exponent and N is the RSA modulus. As usual, the decryption function f(z) = zd mod N is applied thus giving f(E(x)) = (xr)ed mod N = xr mod N. Finally it is unblinded using the function D(z) = zr−1 mod N. Multiplying xr mod N by r−1 mod N yields x, as desired. When decrypting in this manner, an adversary who is able to measure time taken by this operation would not be able to make use of this information (by applying timing attacks RSA is known to be vulnerable to) as they does not know the constant r and hence has no knowledge of the real input fed to the RSA primitives. Blinding in GPG 1.x

  Read more →
• 

  Personal web page

  Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution. Personal web pages are primarily used for informative or entertainment purposes but can also be used for personal career marketing (by containing a list of the individual's skills, experience and a CV), social networking with other people with shared interests, or as a space for personal expression. These terms do not usually refer to just a single "page" or HTML file, but to a website—a collection of webpages and related files under a common URL or Web address. In strictly technical terms, a site's actual home page (index page) often only contains sparse content with some catchy introductory material and serves mostly as a pointer or table of contents to the more content-rich pages inside, such as résumés, family, hobbies, family genealogy, a web log/diary ("blog"), opinions, online journals and diaries or other writing, examples of written work, digital audio sound clips, digital video clips, digital photos, or information about a user's other interests. Many personal pages only include information of interest to friends and family of the author. However, some webpages set up by hobbyists or enthusiasts of certain subject areas can be valuable topical web directories. == History == In the 1990s, most Internet service providers (ISPs) provided a free small personal, user-created webpage along with free Usenet News service. These were all considered part of full Internet service. Also several free web hosting services such as GeoCities provided free web space for personal web pages. These free web hosting services would typically include web-based site management and a few pre-configured scripts to easily integrate an input form or guestbook script into the user's site. Early personal web pages were often called "home pages" and were intended to be set as a default page in a web browser's preferences, usually by their owner. These pages would often contain links, to-do lists, and other information their author found useful. In the days when search engines were in their infancy, these pages (and the links they contained) could be an important resource in navigating the web. Since the early 2000s, the rise of blogging and the development of user friendly web page designing software made it easier for amateur users who did not have computer programming or website designer training to create personal web pages. Some website design websites provided free ready-made blogging scripts, where all the user had to do was input their content into a template. At the same time, a personal web presence became easier with the increased popularity of social networking services, some with blogging platforms such as LiveJournal and Blogger. These websites provided an attractive and easy-to-use content management system for regular users. Most of the early personal websites were Web 1.0 style, in which a static display of text and images or photos was displayed to individuals who came to the page. About the only interaction that was possible on these early websites was signing the virtual "guestbook". With the collapse of the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s, the ISP industry consolidated, and the focus of web hosting services shifted away from the surviving ISP companies to independent Internet hosting services and to ones with other affiliations. For example, many university departments provided personal pages for professors and television broadcasters provided them for their on-air personalities. These free webpages served as a perquisite ("perk") for staff, while at the same time boosting the Web visibility of the parent organization. Web hosting companies either charge a monthly fee, or provide service that is "free" (advertising based) for personal web pages. These are priced or limited according to the total size of all files in bytes on the host's hard drive, or by bandwidth, (traffic), or by some combination of both. For those customers who continue to use their ISP for these services, national ISPs commonly continue to provide both disk space and help including ready-made drop-in scripts. With the rise of Web 2.0-style websites, both professional websites and user-created, amateur websites tended to contain interactive features, such as "clickable" links to online newspaper articles or favourite websites, the option to comment on content displayed on the website, the option to "tag" images, videos or links on the site, the option of "clicking" on an image to enlarge it or find out more information, the option of user participation for website guests to evaluate or review the pages, or even the option to create new user-generated content for others to see. A key difference between Web 1.0 personal webpages and Web 2.0 personal pages was while the former tended to be created by hackers, computer programmers and computer hobbyists, the latter were created by a much wider variety of users, including individuals whose main interests lay in hobbies or topics outside of computers (e.g., indie music fans, political activists, and social entrepreneurs). == Motivations == In a study done by Zinkhan, participants had four main reasons to create personal web pages. First, people use personal web pages as a portrayal of self, in a sense marketing themselves, since creators have the freedom to portray their own identities. Second, personal web pages are a way to interact with people who have similar interests as the creator, possible employers, or colleagues. Third, personal web pages can gain social acceptance with groups that the creator is interested in depending on the information that the creator reveals about themselves. Fourth, personal web pages can give creators a sense of connection to the world since these web pages are public and a way to introduce oneself to other people around the globe. People may maintain personal web pages to serve as a showcase for their skills in professional life, creative skills or self promotion of their business, charity or band. The use of personal web pages to display an individual's professional life has become more common in the 21st century. Mary Madden, an expert researcher on privacy and technology, did a study that found a tenth of American jobs require Personal web pages that advertise an individual online. Personal web pages have become a source of initial impression of possible employees used by employers. It can also be used to express opinions on issues ranging from news and politics to movies. Others may use their personal web page as a communication method. For example, an aspiring artist might give out business cards with their personal web page, and invite people to visit their page and see their artwork, "like" their page or sign their guestbook. A personal web page gives the owner generally more control on presence in search results and how they wish to be viewed online. It also allows more freedom in types and quantity of content than a social network profile offers, and can link various social media profiles with each other. It can be used to correct the record on something, or clear up potential confusion between you and someone with the same name. In the 2010s, some amateur writers, bands and filmmakers release digital versions of their stories, songs and short films online, with the aim of gaining an audience and becoming more well-known. While the huge number of aspiring artists posting their work online makes it unlikely for individuals and groups to become popular via the Internet, there are a small number of YouTube stars who were unknown until their online performances garnered them a huge audience. == Sites of academics == Academic professionals (especially at the college and university level), including professors and researchers, are often given online space for creating and storing personal web documents, including personal web pages, CVs and a list of their books, academic papers and conference presentations, on the websites of their employers. This goes back to the early decade of the World Wide Web and its original purpose of providing a quick and easy way for academics to share research papers and data. Researchers may have a personal website to share more information about themselves, about their academic activities and for sharing (unpublished) results of their research. This has been noted as part of the success of open-access repositories such as arXiv.

  Read more →