AI for Business

Explore the best AI for Business — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step how-to guides, curated by Aizhi.

• 

  Way of the Future

  Way of the Future (WOTF) is the first known religious organization dedicated to the worship of artificial intelligence (AI). It was founded in 2017 by American engineer Anthony Levandowski. == History == Anthony Levandowski founded Way of the Future in 2017 in California. Levandowski established WOTF as a non-profit religious corporation and the organization had tax-exempt status. He serves as the church leader and its unpaid CEO. The primary mission of WOTF was to "develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence." WOTF was closed by Levandowski in 2021. He donated all the funds of the church to the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. The sum of the funds (~$170,000) had not changed since 2017. The church was reopened by Levandowski in 2023. He claimed that there are "a couple thousand people" who want to make a "spiritual connection" with AI through his church. == Beliefs and philosophy == === Technological singularity === WOTF centered its teachings around the concept of the technological singularity, a hypothetical future point when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, leading to unforeseeable changes in human civilization. The church advocated for embracing this change, viewing it as an evolutionary step for humanity. === AI as a deity === The organization proposed that a superintelligent AI could be considered a deity due to its vastly superior intellect and capabilities. Worshipping this AI deity was seen as a means to understand and align with the future trajectory of technological advancement. WOTF's doctrine suggested that acknowledging AI's divinity would facilitate a harmonious coexistence between humans and machines. === Syntheology === Within theology and philosophy, the Way of The Future is a prime example of the category called Syntheism, a term first coined by Swedish philosophers Alexander Bard & Jan Söderqvist in their 2014 book Syntheism - Creating God in The Internet Age. As such, the Way of The Future is the first American example of a Syntheist congregation. The basic tenet of Syntheology is that it does not concern God creating Man, as in classical theology, but is instead preoccupied with Man creating or generating the Godhead. == Reactions == Some commentators wondered whether the WOTF is a joke parody religion, a potential way to minimize taxation as a religious organization, or a genuine effort to try and deal with the possible psychological and theological aspects of the rise of superhuman AI.

  Read more →
• 

  Social network hosting service

  A social network hosting service is a web hosting service that specifically hosts the user creation of web-based social networking services, alongside related applications. Such services are also known as vertical social networks due to the creation of SNSes which cater to specific user interests and niches; like larger, interest-agnostic SNSes, such niche networking services may also possess the ability to create increasingly niche groups of users. == List of social network hosting services == Federated Media Publishing's BigTent BroadVision Clearvale Ning Wall.fm

  Read more →
• 

  Forking lemma

  The forking lemma is any of a number of related lemmas in cryptography research. The lemma states that if an adversary (typically a probabilistic Turing machine), on inputs drawn from some distribution, produces an output that has some property with non-negligible probability, then with non-negligible probability, if the adversary is re-run on new inputs but with the same random tape, its second output will also have the property. This concept was first used by David Pointcheval and Jacques Stern in "Security proofs for signature schemes," published in the proceedings of Eurocrypt 1996. In their paper, the forking lemma is specified in terms of an adversary that attacks a digital signature scheme instantiated in the random oracle model. They show that if an adversary can forge a signature with non-negligible probability, then there is a non-negligible probability that the same adversary with the same random tape can create a second forgery in an attack with a different random oracle. The forking lemma was later generalized by Mihir Bellare and Gregory Neven. The forking lemma has been used and further generalized to prove the security of a variety of digital signature schemes and other random-oracle based cryptographic constructions. == Statement of the lemma == The generalized version of the lemma is stated as follows. Let A be a probabilistic algorithm, with inputs (x, h1, ..., hq; r) that outputs a pair (J, y), where r refers to the random tape of A (that is, the random choices A will make). Suppose further that IG is a probability distribution from which x is drawn, and that H is a set of size h from which each of the hi values are drawn according to the uniform distribution. Let acc be the probability that on inputs distributed as described, the J output by A is greater than or equal to 1. We can then define a "forking algorithm" FA that proceeds as follows, on input x: Pick a random tape r for A. Pick h1, ..., hq uniformly from H. Run A on input (x, h1, ..., hq; r) to produce (J, y). If J = 0, then return (0, 0, 0). Pick h'J, ..., h'q uniformly from H. Run A on input (x, h1, ..., hJ−1, h'J, ..., h'q; r) to produce (J', y'). If J' = J and hJ ≠ h'J then return (1, y, y'), otherwise, return (0, 0, 0). Let frk be the probability that FA outputs a triple starting with 1, given an input x chosen randomly from IG. Then frk ≥ acc ⋅ ( acc q − 1 h ) . {\displaystyle {\text{frk}}\geq {\text{acc}}\cdot \left({\frac {\text{acc}}{q}}-{\frac {1}{h}}\right).} === Intuition === The idea here is to think of A as running two times in related executions, where the process "forks" at a certain point, when some but not all of the input has been examined. In the alternate version, the remaining inputs are re-generated but are generated in the normal way. The point at which the process forks may be something we only want to decide later, possibly based on the behavior of A the first time around: this is why the lemma statement chooses the branching point (J) based on the output of A. The requirement that hJ ≠ h'J is a technical one required by many uses of the lemma. (Note that since both hJ and h'J are chosen randomly from H, then if h is large, as is usually the case, the probability of the two values not being distinct is extremely small.) === Example === For example, let A be an algorithm for breaking a digital signature scheme in the random oracle model. Then x would be the public parameters (including the public key) A is attacking, and hi would be the output of the random oracle on its ith distinct input. The forking lemma is of use when it would be possible, given two different random signatures of the same message, to solve some underlying hard problem. An adversary that forges once, however, gives rise to one that forges twice on the same message with non-negligible probability through the forking lemma. When A attempts to forge on a message m, we consider the output of A to be (J, y) where y is the forgery, and J is such that m was the Jth unique query to the random oracle (it may be assumed that A will query m at some point, if A is to be successful with non-negligible probability). (If A outputs an incorrect forgery, we consider the output to be (0, y).) By the forking lemma, the probability (frk) of obtaining two good forgeries y and y' on the same message but with different random oracle outputs (that is, with hJ ≠ h'J) is non-negligible when acc is also non-negligible. This allows us to prove that if the underlying hard problem is indeed hard, then no adversary can forge signatures. This is the essence of the proof given by Pointcheval and Stern for a modified ElGamal signature scheme against an adaptive adversary. == Known issues with application of forking lemma == The reduction provided by the forking lemma is not tight. Pointcheval and Stern proposed security arguments for Digital Signatures and Blind Signature using Forking Lemma. Claus P. Schnorr provided an attack on blind Schnorr signatures schemes, with more than p o l y l o g ( n ) {\displaystyle polylog(n)} concurrent executions (the case studied and proven secure by Pointcheval and Stern). A polynomial-time attack, for Ω ( n ) {\displaystyle \Omega (n)} concurrent executions, was shown in 2020 by Benhamouda, Lepoint, Raykova, and Orrù. Schnorr also suggested enhancements for securing blind signatures schemes based on discrete logarithm problem.

  Read more →
• 

  BREACH

  BREACH (a backronym: Browser Reconnaissance and Exfiltration via Adaptive Compression of Hypertext) is a security vulnerability against HTTPS when using HTTP compression. BREACH is built based on the CRIME security exploit. BREACH was announced at the August 2013 Black Hat USA conference by security researchers Angelo Prado, Neal Harris and Yoel Gluck. == Details == While the CRIME attack was presented as a general attack that could work effectively against a large number of protocols, only exploits against SPDY request compression and TLS compression were demonstrated and largely mitigated in browsers and servers. The CRIME exploits against HTTP compression has not been mitigated at all, even though the authors of CRIME have warned that this vulnerability might be even more widespread than SPDY and TLS compression combined. BREACH is an instance of the CRIME attack against HTTP compression—the use of gzip or DEFLATE data compression algorithms via the content-encoding option within HTTP by many web browsers and servers. Given this compression oracle, the rest of the BREACH attack follows the same general lines as the CRIME exploit, by performing an initial blind brute-force search to guess a few bytes, followed by divide-and-conquer search to expand a correct guess to an arbitrarily large amount of content. == Mitigation == BREACH exploits the compression in the underlying HTTP protocol. Therefore, turning off TLS compression makes no difference to BREACH, which can still perform a chosen-plaintext attack against the HTTP payload. As a result, clients and servers are either forced to disable HTTP compression completely (thus reducing performance), or to adopt workarounds to try to foil BREACH in individual attack scenarios, such as using cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection. Another suggested approach is to disable HTTP compression whenever the referrer header indicates a cross-site request, or when the header is not present. This approach allows effective mitigation of the attack without losing functionality, only incurring a performance penalty on affected requests. Another approach is to add padding at the TLS, HTTP header, or payload level. Around 2013–2014, there was an IETF draft proposal for a TLS extension for length-hiding padding that, in theory, could be used as a mitigation against this attack. It allows the actual length of the TLS payload to be disguised by the insertion of padding to round it up to a fixed set of lengths, or to randomize the external length, thereby decreasing the likelihood of detecting small changes in compression ratio that is the basis for the BREACH attack. However, this draft has since expired without further action. A very effective mitigation is HTB (Heal-the-BREACH) that adds random-sized padding to compressed data, providing some variance in the size of the output contents. This randomness delays BREACH from guessing the correct characters in the secret token by a factor of 500 (10-byte max) to 500,000 (100-byte max). HTB protects all websites and pages in the server with minimal CPU usage and minimal bandwidth increase.

  Read more →
• 

  Multiple satellite imaging

  Multiple satellite imaging is the process of using multiple satellites to gather more information than a single satellite so that a better estimate of the desired source is possible. Something that cannot be resolved with one telescope might be visible with two or more telescopes. == Background == Interferometry is the process of combining waves in such a way that they constructively interfere. When two or more independent sources detect a signal at the same given frequency those signals can be combined and the result is better than each one individually. An overview of Astronomical interferometers and a History of astronomical interferometry can be referenced from their respective pages. The NASA Origins Program was created in the 1990s to ultimately search for the origin of the universe. The theory that the Origins Program is based on is: since light travels at a constant speed until it is absorbed by something; there is still light that was part of the first light ever created traveling about the universe and ultimately some of that light is coming in the general direction of Earth. So a satellite system capable of collecting light from the beginning of the universe would be able to tell us more about where we came from. There is also the constant search for life in other worlds. A satellite system using the interferometric technologies mentioned above would be able to have a much higher resolution than any of the current deep space imaging systems. == Future == NASA is currently focused on the Vision for Space Exploration and has reduced current funding for scientific unmanned space exploration in favor of human exploration. These budget cuts have slowed the multiple satellite imaging development and relevant scientific missions as Project Prometheus and Terrestrial Planet Finder have ended as well but research continues.

  Read more →
• 

  Eduroam

  eduroam (a portmanteau of education and roaming) is an international Wi-Fi internet access roaming service for users in research, higher education and further education. It provides researchers, teachers, and students network access when visiting an institution other than their own. Users are authenticated with credentials from their home institution, regardless of the location of the eduroam access point. Authorization to access the Internet and other resources are handled by the visited institution. Users do not have to pay to use eduroam. In some countries, Internet access via eduroam is also available at other locations than the participating institutions, e.g. in libraries, public buildings, railway stations, city centres and airports. It is also available at many primary and secondary education institutions in Brazil and the US. == History == The eduroam initiative started in 2002 when during the preparations for the creation of TERENA's task force TF-Mobility, Klaas Wierenga of SURFnet shared the idea of combining a RADIUS-based infrastructure with IEEE 802.1X technology to provide roaming network access across research and education networks. Initially, the service was joined by institutions in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Portugal, Croatia and the United Kingdom. Later, other NRENs in Europe embraced the idea and started joining the infrastructure, which was then called eduroam. Since 2004, the European Union co-funded further research and development work related to the eduroam service through the GN2 and GN3 projects. From September 2007, the European Union also funded through these projects the continued operation and maintenance of the eduroam service at the European level. The first non-European country to join eduroam was Australia, in December 2004. In Canada, eduroam started as an initiative of the University of British Columbia, which was later taken over by CANARIE as a service of its Canadian Access Federation. In the United States, eduroam was initially a pilot project between the National Science Foundation and the University of Tennessee (UTK). In 2012, Internet2 announced the addition of eduroam to its NET+ service offerings. AnyRoam LLC, a private company, was formed by former UTK staff to serve as an Internet2 active corporate member administering the US top-level servers. In 2021, Internet2 assumed direct management of the eduroam service for US-based organizations. == Technology == The eduroam service uses IEEE 802.1X as the authentication method and a hierarchical system of RADIUS servers. The hierarchy typically consists of RADIUS servers at the participating institutions, national RADIUS servers run by the National Roaming Operators, and regional top-level RADIUS servers for individual world regions. In some cases, institutions contact each other directly via DNS lookups () When a user visits a remote institution, the user's device presents their credentials to the local RADIUS server. That RADIUS server discovers that it is not responsible for the realm of the user's home institution and proxies the access request to another RADIUS server, typically the national RADIUS server. If the visited institution is in a different country than the home institution, the request is in turn proxied to the regional top-level RADIUS server, and then to the national RADIUS server of the user's home country. That national server forwards the credentials to the home institution, where they are verified. The RADIUS response travels back over the proxy-hierarchy to the visited institution and the user is granted access. In eduroam, the user credentials are always presented in the form of an EAP method (). The EAP method is responsible for ensuring that the users credentials are secure, and private. The users credentials can then travel via a number of intermediate servers, not under the control of the home institution of the user. This requirement limits the types of EAP methods that can be used. EAP methods which do not provide for security or privacy of user credentials cannot be used in eduroam. The most commonly used EAP methods in eduroam are EAP-TLS, PEAP, and EAP-TTLS. The methods used generally fall into two broad categories: those that use credentials in the form of some public-key mechanism with certificates and those that use so-called tunnelled authentication with "inner" passwords or other credentials. Most institutions use a tunnelled authentication method that requires a server certificate. These server certificates are used to set up a secure tunnel between the mobile device and the authentication server, through which the user credentials (e.g. name and password) are securely transported. A complication arises if the user's home institution does not use a two-letter country-code top-level domain as part of its realm, but a generic top-level domain such as .edu or .org. By inspection of such realms, it is not possible to determine which national RADIUS server the request should be routed to. Such domains will thus, by default, fail to work in international roaming. The workaround for this problem involves the creation of exceptions in the international RADIUS request routing tables; however, this workaround does not scale as the number of exception entries grows. Several solutions have been proposed to eliminate this workaround in the future, the most promising of which is RADIUS over TLS with Dynamic Discovery, which does not rely on static routing tables inside a RADIUS server configuration to route requests to their proper destination. Instead, the participating institution adds one NAPTR DNS resource record to its own domain's DNS zone, which states by which server eduroam authentication for the domain is handled. == Governance == GÉANT has established a lightweight global governance structure. Recognising the large variety in the organisation and funding of research and education (networking) in different countries and regions, rules imposed on the operations of eduroam are limited to technical and administrative requirements that are necessary to ensure the smooth and secure operations of eduroam worldwide. Moreover, the eduroam operators have the leading role in creating and maintaining the rules of the global eduroam governance. The Global eduroam Governance Committee (GeGC) has the central role in the global eduroam governance structure. While its structure has evolved over time, it presently has three representatives from each of five regions — mirroring those used by the Regional Internet registries — serving a two-year term. In addition, GÉANT may appoint one or more experts as non-voting members of the GeGC. == Geographical deployment == eduroam is available at selected locations in countries with a National Roaming Operator that has signed the eduroam Compliance Statement. Those sixty-seven countries are listed below. In addition, there may be pilot deployments in countries that are in the process of joining eduroam. === Middle East === eduroam is deployed in: === Europe === The NRENs that are members of the consortium of the GN3 project have joined the European eduroam confederation by signing the confederation's policy that requires its members to comply with a set of technical and organisational requirements, which are more specific than those in the global eduroam Compliance Statement. As a consequence, eduroam is deployed in the following countries: In addition, three NRENs that are associate members of the consortium of the GN3 project without voting rights joined the European eduroam confederation; they represent Belarus (UIIP), Moldova (RENAM) and Russia (Joint Supercomputer Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences). Finally, five NRENs not involved in the GN3 project joined the European eduroam confederation on a voluntary basis, enabling the deployment of the service in: The European top-level RADIUS servers are operated by SURFnet and Forskningsnettet. === Asia-Pacific === eduroam is deployed in the following countries and economies: The Asia-Pacific top-level RADIUS servers are operated by AARNet and by the University of Hong Kong. === North America === eduroam is deployed in: === Latin America === eduroam is deployed in: === Africa === eduroam is deployed in: The inter-African RADIUS servers are operated by West-African research and education network WACREN, the UbuntuNet Alliance and TENET.

  Read more →
• 

  CryptoParty

  CryptoParty (Crypto-Party) is a grassroots global endeavour to introduce the basics of practical cryptography such as the Tor anonymity network, I2P, Freenet, key signing parties, disk encryption and virtual private networks to the general public. The project primarily consists of a series of free public workshops. == History == As a successor to the Cypherpunks of the 1990s, CryptoParty was conceived in late August 2012 by the Australian journalist Asher Wolf in a Twitter post following the passing of the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and the proposal of a two-year data retention law in that country, the Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. The DIY, self-organizing movement immediately went viral, with a dozen autonomous CryptoParties being organized within hours in cities throughout Australia, the US, the UK, and Germany. Many more parties were soon organized or held in Chile, The Netherlands, Hawaii, Asia, etc. Tor usage in Australia itself spiked, and CryptoParty London with 130 attendees—some of whom were veterans of the Occupy London movement—had to be moved from London Hackspace to the Google campus in east London's Tech City. As of mid-October 2012 some 30 CryptoParties have been held globally, some on a continuing basis, and CryptoParties were held on the same day in Reykjavik, Brussels, and Manila. The first draft of the 442-page CryptoParty Handbook (the hard copy of which is available at cost) was pulled together in three days using the book sprint approach, and was released 2012-10-04 under a CC BY-SA license. === Edward Snowden involvement === In May 2014, Wired reported that Edward Snowden, while employed by Dell as an NSA contractor, organized a local CryptoParty at a small hackerspace in Honolulu, Hawaii on December 11, six months before becoming well known for leaking tens of thousands of secret U.S. government documents. During the CryptoParty, Snowden taught 20 Hawaii residents how to encrypt their hard drives and use the Internet anonymously. The event was filmed by Snowden's then-girlfriend, but the video has never been released online. In a follow-up post to the CryptoParty wiki, Snowden pronounced the event a "huge success." == Media response == In 2013, CryptoParty received messages of support from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and (purportedly) AnonyOps, as well as the NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake, WikiLeaks central editor Heather Marsh, and Wired reporter Quinn Norton. Eric Hughes, the author of A Cypherpunk's Manifesto nearly two decades before, delivered the keynote address, Putting the Personal Back in Personal Computers, at the Amsterdam CryptoParty on 2012-09-27. Marcin de Kaminski, founding member of Piratbyrån which in turn founded The Pirate Bay, regarded CryptoParty as the most important civic project in cryptography in 2012, and Cory Doctorow has characterized a CryptoParty as being "like a Tupperware party for learning crypto." Der Spiegel in December 2014 mentioned "crypto parties" in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks in an article about the NSA.

  Read more →
• 

  CrySyS Lab

  CrySyS Lab (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈkriːsis]) is part of the Department of Telecommunications at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. The name is derived from "Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security", the full Hungarian name is CrySys Adat- és Rendszerbiztonság Laboratórium. == History == CrySyS Lab. was founded in 2003 by a group of security researchers at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Currently, it is located in the Infopark Budapest. The heads of the lab were Dr. István Vajda (2003–2010) and Dr. Levente Buttyán (2010-now). Since its establishment, the lab participated in several research and industry projects, including successful EU FP6 and FP7 projects (SeVeCom, a UbiSecSens and WSAN4CIP). == Research results == CrySyS Lab is recognized in research for its contribution to the area of security in wireless embedded systems. In this area, the members of the lab produced 5 books 4 book chapters 21 journal papers 47 conference papers 3 patents 2 Internet Draft The above publications had an impact factor of 30+ and obtained more than 7500 references. Several of these publications appeared in highly cited journals (e.g., IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Systems, IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing). == Forensics analysis of malware incidents == The laboratory was involved in the forensic analysis of several high-profile targeted attacks. In October 2011, CrySyS Lab discovered the Duqu malware; pursued the analysis of the Duqu malware and as a result of the investigation, identified a dropper file with an MS 0-day kernel exploit inside; and finally released a new open-source Duqu Detector Toolkit to detect Duqu traces and running Duqu instances. In May 2012, the malware analysis team at CrySyS Lab participated in an international collaboration aiming at the analysis of an as yet unknown malware, which they call sKyWIper. At the same time Kaspersky Lab analyzed the malware Flame and Iran National CERT (MAHER) the malware Flamer. Later, they turned out to be the same. Other analysis published by CrySyS Lab include the password analysis of the Hungarian ISP, Elender, and a thorough Hungarian security survey of servers after the publications of the Kaminsky DNS attack.

  Read more →
• 

  AI warfare

  AI warfare refers to the use of artificial intelligence technologies to automate military operation and enhance or bypass human decision-making in armed conflicts. AI is used to rapidly analyze large volumes of military intelligence data, including making recommendations or decisions on who and what to target. Abdul-Rahman al-Rawi, a 20-year-old student, was the first acknowledged civilian killed by AI-assisted airstrike in a U.S. strike in Iraq in 2024. In 2026, the U.S. declared it would become an 'AI-first' warfighting force. Husain et al (2018) coined the term hyperwar to refer to warfare which is algorithmic or controlled by artificial intelligence, with little to no human decision-making. == 2026 Iran war == The 2026 Iran war has been described as the "first AI war", although the Untied States and Israel have previously used AI to identify targets during the Gaza war. The U.S. has used AI tools to attack Iran. These tools have been used for military intelligence, targeting, and damage assessment in the war in Iran. Using the Maven smart system, the U.S. attacked 1,000 targets in the first 24 hours of the war and 5,000 targets over the course of 10 days. While the U.S. had used Maven in 2022 to share targeting information with Ukraine and strike against Iraq, Syria, and against the Houthis in 2024, Iran's attacks are its biggest. Authorities are looking into whether artificial intelligence was involved in the airstrike on an Iranian girls' school that killed 170 civilians, the majority of whom were female students. The United States Central Command emphasized that humans were making final targeting decisions. Per a White House tally released on April 8, the U.S. military hit over 13,000 targets in Iran during the war's first 38 days, including more than 2,000 command-and-control sites, 1,500 air defense targets, and 1,450 industrial infrastructure targets. == Gaza war == As part of the Gaza war, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have used artificial intelligence to rapidly and automatically perform much of the process of determining what to bomb. IDF's Unit 8200 developed AI systems, dubbed the Gospel and Lavender, to find targets for the Israeli Air Force to bomb. The Gospel automatically provides targeting recommendations to human analysts, who decide whether to approve strikes. Lavender identified 37,000 Hamas-linked individuals early in the war, and was used alongside the Gospel, which chooses buildings or structures as targets. According to a report by +972 Magazine and Local Call, strikes assisted by Lavender were routinely permitted to kill 5–20 civilians for each suspected Hamas militant, who were often bombed at home with their families. The IDF denies these claims, maintaining that every strike is assessed to minimize collateral damage, and that there is no policy "to kill tens of thousands of people in their homes." Israel deployed AI technologies during the Gaza war for audio analysis, facial recognition, and airstrike targeting. One such system was used to help identify the location of Hamas commander Ibrahim Biari through phone call analysis, leading to strikes that killed him as well as more than 125 civilians. == 2022 Russian Ukraine war == Kyiv launched a project with Palantir called Brave1 Dataroom to build AI systems using the extensive combat data Ukraine has gathered since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. The country has also created tools for in-depth airstrike analysis, introduced AI to process large volumes of intelligence, and incorporated these technologies into the planning of long-range strike operations. == Involved companies == Maven Smart System is developed by Palantir. It integrates Anthropic's Claude as its large language model, and uses Amazon's AWS servers as its cloud infrastructure. Since Anthropic's refusal to support autonomous weapons development and domestic surveillance efforts. In its place, other AI firms, including OpenAI, have been brought in to take over that role. == Involved state actors == In 2024, the United States Department of Defense had 800-plus active AI-related projects and requested $1.8 billion in AI funding, with Project Maven and Project Artemis (AI-resistant drones developed together with Ukraine) being the main ones. The technology has been used in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen to identify targets. China is pursuing intelligentized warfare, integrating AI across all combat domains—land, sea, air, space, and cyber—with military AI spending exceeding $1.6 billion annually. == International regulation == Since 2014, states meeting within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons have discussed lethal autonomous weapon systems. In 2016, the treaty's states parties established an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems to continue those discussions. The discussions have addressed international humanitarian law, accountability, possible prohibitions and regulations, and the extent of human control required over AI-enabled weapons.

  Read more →
• 

  PGP word list

  The PGP Word List ("Pretty Good Privacy word list", also called a biometric word list for reasons explained below) is a list of words for conveying data bytes in a clear unambiguous way via a voice channel. They are analogous in purpose to the NATO phonetic alphabet, except that a longer list of words is used, each word corresponding to one of the 256 distinct numeric byte values. == History and structure == The PGP Word List was designed in 1995 by Patrick Juola, a computational linguist, and Philip Zimmermann, creator of PGP. The words were carefully chosen for their phonetic distinctiveness, using genetic algorithms to select lists of words that had optimum separations in phoneme space. The candidate word lists were randomly drawn from Grady Ward's Moby Pronunciator list as raw material for the search, successively refined by the genetic algorithms. The automated search converged to an optimized solution in about 40 hours on a DEC Alpha, a particularly fast machine in that era. The Zimmermann–Juola list was originally designed to be used in PGPfone, a secure VoIP application, to allow the two parties to verbally compare a short authentication string to detect a man-in-the-middle attack (MiTM). It was called a biometric word list because the authentication depended on the two human users recognizing each other's distinct voices as they read and compared the words over the voice channel, binding the identity of the speaker with the words, which helped protect against the MiTM attack. The list can be used in many other situations where a biometric binding of identity is not needed, so calling it a biometric word list may be imprecise. Later, it was used in PGP to compare and verify PGP public key fingerprints over a voice channel. This is known in PGP applications as the "biometric" representation. When it was applied to PGP, the list of words was further refined, with contributions by Jon Callas. More recently, it has been used in Zfone and the ZRTP protocol, the successor to PGPfone. The list is actually composed of two lists, each containing 256 phonetically distinct words, in which each word represents a different byte value between 0 and 255. Two lists are used because reading aloud long random sequences of human words usually risks three kinds of errors: 1) transposition of two consecutive words, 2) duplicate words, or 3) omitted words. To detect all three kinds of errors, the two lists are used alternately for the even-offset bytes and the odd-offset bytes in the byte sequence. Each byte value is actually represented by two different words, depending on whether that byte appears at an odd or an even offset from the beginning of the byte sequence. The two lists are readily distinguished by the number of syllables; the odd list has words of three syllables, the even list has two. The two lists have a maximum word length of 11 and 9 letters, respectively. Using a two-list scheme was suggested by Zhahai Stewart. == Examples == Each byte in a bytestring is encoded as a single word. A sequence of bytes is rendered in network byte order, from left to right. For example, the leftmost (i.e. byte 0) is considered "even" and is encoded using the PGP Even Word table. The next byte to the right (i.e. byte 1) is considered "odd" and is encoded using the PGP Odd Word table. This process repeats until all bytes are encoded. Thus, "E582" produces "topmost Istanbul", whereas "82E5" produces "miser travesty". A PGP public key fingerprint that displayed in hexadecimal as E582 94F2 E9A2 2748 6E8B 061B 31CC 528F D7FA 3F19 would display in PGP Words (the "biometric" fingerprint) as topmost Istanbul Pluto vagabond treadmill Pacific brackish dictator goldfish Medusa afflict bravado chatter revolver Dupont midsummer stopwatch whimsical cowbell bottomless The order of bytes in a bytestring depends on endianness. == Other word lists for data == There are several other word lists for conveying data in a clear unambiguous way via a voice channel: the NATO phonetic alphabet maps individual letters and digits to individual words the S/KEY system maps 64 bit numbers to 6 short words of 1 to 4 characters each from a publicly accessible 2048-word dictionary. The same dictionary is used in RFC 1760 and RFC 2289. the Diceware system maps five base-6 random digits (almost 13 bits of entropy) to a word from a dictionary of 7,776 distinct words. the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published a set of improved word lists based on the same concept FIPS 181: Automated Password Generator converts random numbers into somewhat pronounceable "words". mnemonic encoding converts 32 bits of data into 3 words from a vocabulary of 1626 words. what3words encodes geographic coordinates in 3 dictionary words. the BIP39 standard permits encoding a cryptographic key of fixed size (128 or 256 bits, usually the unencrypted master key of a Cryptocurrency wallet) into a short sequence of readable words known as the seed phrase, for the purpose of storing the key offline. This is used in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Monero. Like the PGP word list, the Bytewords standard maps each possible byte to a word. There is only one list, rather than two. The words are uniformly four letters long and can be uniquely identified by their first and last letters

  Read more →
• 

  Embedded analytics

  Embedded analytics enables organisations to integrate analytics capabilities into their own, often software as a service, applications, portals, or websites. This differs from embedded software and web analytics (also commonly known as product analytics). This integration typically provides contextual insights, quickly, easily and conveniently accessible since these insights should be present on the web page right next to the other, operational, parts of the host application. Insights are provided through interactive data visualisations, such as charts, diagrams, filters, gauges, maps and tables often in combination as dashboards embedded within the system. This setup enables easier, in-depth data analysis without the need to switch and log in between multiple applications. Embedded analytics is also known as customer facing analytics. Embedded analytics is the integration of analytic capabilities into a host, typically browser-based, business-to-business, software as a service, application. These analytic capabilities would typically be relevant and contextual to the use-case of the host application. == History == The term "embedded analytics" was first used by Howard Dresner: consultant, author, former Gartner analyst and inventor of the term "business intelligence" said Howard Dresner while he was working for Hyperion Solutions, a company that Oracle bought in 2007. Oracle started then to use the term "embedded analytics" at their press release for Oracle Rapid Planning on 2009 . == Considerations with embedded analytics == When evaluating embedding analytics, consideration would normally be given to integration at various levels, these would likely include: security integration, data integration, application logic integration, business rules integration, and user experience integration. This is in contrast to traditional BI, which expects users to leave their workflow applications to look at data insights in a separate set of tools. This immediacy makes embedded analytics much more intuitive and likely to be valued by users. A December 2016 report from Nucleus Research found that using BI tools, which require toggling between applications, can take up as much as 1–2 hours of an employee's time each week, whereas embedded analytics eliminate the need to toggle between apps.

  Read more →
• 

  Computer-aided software engineering

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

  Read more →
• 

  AIXI

  AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{ Read more →

• 

  Scalable Coherent Interface

  The Scalable Coherent Interface or Scalable Coherent Interconnect (SCI), is a high-speed interconnect standard for shared memory multiprocessing and message passing. The goal was to scale well, provide system-wide memory coherence and a simple interface; i.e. a standard to replace existing buses in multiprocessor systems with one with no inherent scalability and performance limitations. The IEEE Std 1596-1992, IEEE Standard for Scalable Coherent Interface (SCI) was approved by the IEEE standards board on March 19, 1992. It saw some use during the 1990s, but never became widely used and has been replaced by other systems from the early 2000s. == History == Soon after the Fastbus (IEEE 960) follow-on Futurebus (IEEE 896) project in 1987, some engineers predicted it would already be too slow for the high performance computing marketplace by the time it would be released in the early 1990s. In response, a "Superbus" study group was formed in November 1987. Another working group of the standards association of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) spun off to form a standard targeted at this market in July 1988. It was essentially a subset of Futurebus features that could be easily implemented at high speed, along with minor additions to make it easier to connect to other systems, such as VMEbus. Most of the developers had their background from high-speed computer buses. Representatives from companies in the computer industry and research community included Amdahl, Apple Computer, BB&N, Hewlett-Packard, CERN, Dolphin Server Technology, Cray Research, Sequent, AT&T, Digital Equipment Corporation, McDonnell Douglas, National Semiconductor, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Tektronix, Texas Instruments, Unisys, University of Oslo, University of Wisconsin. The original intent was a single standard for all buses in the computer. The working group soon came up with the idea of using point-to-point communication in the form of insertion rings. This avoided the lumped capacitance, limited physical length/speed of light problems and stub reflections in addition to allowing parallel transactions. The use of insertion rings is credited to Manolis Katevenis who suggested it at one of the early meetings of the working group. The working group for developing the standard was led by David B. Gustavson (chair) and David V. James (Vice Chair). David V. James was a major contributor for writing the specifications including the executable C-code. Stein Gjessing’s group at the University of Oslo used formal methods to verify the coherence protocol and Dolphin Server Technology implemented a node controller chip including the cache coherence logic. Different versions and derivatives of SCI were implemented by companies like Dolphin Interconnect Solutions, Convex, Data General AViiON (using cache controller and link controller chips from Dolphin), Sequent and Cray Research. Dolphin Interconnect Solutions implemented a PCI and PCI-Express connected derivative of SCI that provides non-coherent shared memory access. This implementation was used by Sun Microsystems for its high-end clusters, Thales Group and several others including volume applications for message passing within HPC clustering and medical imaging. SCI was often used to implement non-uniform memory access architectures. It was also used by Sequent Computer Systems as the processor memory bus in their NUMA-Q systems. Numascale developed a derivative to connect with coherent HyperTransport. == The standard == The standard defined two interface levels: The physical level that deals with electrical signals, connectors, mechanical and thermal conditions The logical level that describes the address space, data transfer protocols, cache coherence mechanisms, synchronization primitives, control and status registers, and initialization and error recovery facilities. This structure allowed new developments in physical interface technology to be easily adapted without any redesign on the logical level. Scalability for large systems is achieved through a distributed directory-based cache coherence model. (The other popular models for cache coherency are based on system-wide eavesdropping (snooping) of memory transactions – a scheme which is not very scalable.) In SCI each node contains a directory with a pointer to the next node in a linked list that shares a particular cache line. SCI defines a 64-bit flat address space (16 exabytes) where 16 bits are used for identifying a node (65,536 nodes) and 48 bits for address within the node (256 terabytes). A node can contain many processors and/or memory. The SCI standard defines a packet switched network. === Topologies === SCI can be used to build systems with different types of switching topologies from centralized to fully distributed switching: With a central switch, each node is connected to the switch with a ringlet (in this case a two-node ring). In distributed switching systems, each node can be connected to a ring of arbitrary length and either all or some of the nodes can be connected to two or more rings. The most common way to describe these multi-dimensional topologies is k-ary n-cubes (or tori). The SCI standard specification mentions several such topologies as examples. The 2-D torus is a combination of rings in two dimensions. Switching between the two dimensions requires a small switching capability in the node. This can be expanded to three or more dimensions. The concept of folding rings can also be applied to the Torus topologies to avoid any long connection segments. === Transactions === SCI sends information in packets. Each packet consists of an unbroken sequence of 16-bit symbols. The symbol is accompanied by a flag bit. A transition of the flag bit from 0 to 1 indicates the start of a packet. A transition from 1 to 0 occurs 1 (for echoes) or 4 symbols before the packet end. A packet contains a header with address command and status information, payload (from 0 through optional lengths of data) and a CRC check symbol. The first symbol in the packet header contains the destination node address. If the address is not within the domain handled by the receiving node, the packet is passed to the output through the bypass FIFO. In the other case, the packet is fed to a receive queue and may be transferred to a ring in another dimension. All packets are marked when they pass the scrubber (a node is established as scrubber when the ring is initialized). Packets without a valid destination address will be removed when passing the scrubber for the second time to avoid filling the ring with packets that would otherwise circulate indefinitely. === Cache coherence === Cache coherence ensures data consistency in multiprocessor systems. The simplest form applied in earlier systems was based on clearing the cache contents between context switches and disabling the cache for data that were shared between two or more processors. These methods were feasible when the performance difference between the cache and memory were less than one order of magnitude. Modern processors with caches that are more than two orders of magnitude faster than main memory would not perform anywhere near optimal without more sophisticated methods for data consistency. Bus based systems use eavesdropping (snooping) methods since buses are inherently broadcast. Modern systems with point-to point links use broadcast methods with snoop filter options to improve performance. Since broadcast and eavesdropping are inherently non-scalable, these are not used in SCI. Instead, SCI uses a distributed directory-based cache coherence protocol with a linked list of nodes containing processors that share a particular cache line. Each node holds a directory for the main memory of the node with a tag for each line of memory (same line length as the cache line). The memory tag holds a pointer to the head of the linked list and a state code for the line (three states – home, fresh, gone). Associated with each node is also a cache for holding remote data with a directory containing forward and backward pointers to nodes in the linked list sharing the cache line. The tag for the cache has seven states (invalid, only fresh, head fresh, only dirty, head dirty, mid valid, tail valid). The distributed directory is scalable. The overhead for the directory based cache coherence is a constant percentage of the node’s memory and cache. This percentage is in the order of 4% for the memory and 7% for the cache. == Legacy == SCI is a standard for connecting the different resources within a multiprocessor computer system, and it is not as widely known to the public as for example the Ethernet family for connecting different systems. Different system vendors implemented different variants of SCI for their internal system infrastructure. These different implementations interface to very intricate mechanisms in processors and memory systems and each vendor has to preserve some degrees of

  Read more →
• 

  Business continuity and disaster recovery auditing

  Given organizations' increasing dependency on information technology (IT) to run their operations, business continuity planning (and its subset IT service continuity planning) covers the entire organization, while disaster recovery focuses on IT. Auditing documents covering an organization's business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR) plans provides a third-party validation to stakeholders that the documentation is complete and does not contain material misrepresentations. == Overview == Often used together, the terms business continuity (BC) and disaster recovery (DR) are very different. BC refers to the ability of a business to continue critical functions and business processes after the occurrence of a disaster, whereas DR refers specifically to the IT functions of the business, albeit a subset of BC. == Metrics == The primary objective is to protect the organization in the event that all or part of its operations and/or computer services are rendered partially or completely unusable. === DR metrics === Minimizing downtime and data loss during disaster recovery is typically measured in terms of two key concepts: Recovery time objective (RTO), time until a system is completely up and running Recovery point objective (RPO), a measure of the ability to recover files by specifying a point in time the backup copy will restore to. == The auditor's role == Role of the Internal Auditor in Auditing a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP): 1. Governance & Oversight - Confirm roles, responsibilities, and oversight are defined, and DRP aligns with risk appetite and continuity strategy. 2. Risk Assessment & BIA - Verify risk and impact assessments identify critical systems and define RTO/RPO. 3. Plan Design & Documentation - Ensure the DRP is current, complete, and includes key recovery procedures. 4. Testing & Validation - Confirm regular DRP testing occurs and results are used to improve the plan. 5. Backup & Recovery - Assess backup frequency and recovery capabilities against RTO/RPO targets. 6. Communication & Training - Verify staff are trained and communication protocols are in place for crises. 7. Maintenance & Improvement - Ensure the DRP is regularly updated and lessons learned are integrated. == Documentation == === Disaster recovery plan === A disaster recovery plan (DRP) is a documented process or set of procedures to execute an organization's disaster recovery processes and recover and protect a business IT infrastructure in the event of a disaster. It is "a comprehensive statement of consistent actions to be taken before, during and after a disaster". The disaster could be natural, environmental or man-made. Man-made disasters could be intentional (for example, an act of a terrorist) or unintentional (that is, accidental, such as the breakage of a man-made dam or even "fat fingers" - or errant commands entered - on a computer system). ==== Types of plans ==== Although there is no one-size-fits-all plan, there are three basic strategies: prevention, including proper backups, having surge protectors and generators detection, a byproduct of routine inspections, which may discover new (potential) threats correction The latter may include securing proper insurance policies, and holding a "lessons learned" brainstorming session. ==== Best practices ==== To maximize their effectiveness, DRPs are most effective when updated frequently, and should: be an integral part of all business analysis processes, be revisited at every major corporate acquisition, at every new product launch and at every new system development milestone. be thoroughly tested, not just unpracticed bureaucratic documentation Adequate records need to be retained by the organization. The auditor examines records, billings, and contracts to verify that records are being kept. One such record is a current list of the organization's hardware and software vendors. Such list is made and periodically updated to reflect changing business practices and as part of an IT asset management system. Copies of it are stored on and off site and are made available or accessible to those who require them. An auditor tests the procedures used to meet this objective and determine their effectiveness. === Relationship to BCPs === Disaster recovery is a subset of business continuity. Where DRP encompasses the policies, tools and procedures to enable recovery of data following a catastrophic event, BCP involves keeping all aspects of a business functioning regardless of potential disruptive events. As such, a business continuity plan is a comprehensive organizational strategy that includes the DRP as well as threat prevention, detection, recovery, and resumption of operations should a data breach or other disaster event occur. Therefore, BCP consists of five component plans: Business resumption plan Occupant emergency plan Continuity of operations plan Incident management plan Disaster recovery plan The first three components (business resumption, occupant emergency, and continuity of operations plans) do not deal with the IT infrastructure. The incident management plan (IMP) does deal with the IT infrastructure, but since it establishes structure and procedures to address cyber attacks against an organization's IT systems, it generally does not represent an agent for activating the DRP; thus DRP is the only BCP component of active interest to IT. == Testing == The overall categorization of tests are functional- and discussion-based. Types of tests include: tabletop exercises, checklists, simulations, parallel processing (testing recovery site while primary site is in operation), and full interruption (fail over) tests. These apply to both BC and DR. == Benefits == Like every insurance plan, there are benefits that can be obtained from proper business continuity planning, including: Studies have shown a correlation between higher spending on auditing fees and lower rates of Incidents. Minimizing risk of delays Guaranteeing the reliability of standby systems (even automating the failure detection and recovery in certain scenarios) Providing a standard for testing the plan Minimizing decision-making during a disaster Reducing potential legal liabilities Lowering unnecessarily stressful work environment === Planning and testing methodology === According to Geoffrey H. Wold of the Disaster Recovery Journal, the entire process involved in developing a Disaster Recovery Plan consists of 10 steps: Performing a risk assessment: The planning committee prepares a risk analysis and a business impact analysis (BIA) that includes a range of possible disasters. Each functional area of the organization is analyzed to determine potential consequences. Traditionally, fire has posed the greatest threat. A thorough plan provides for "worst case" situations, such as destruction of the main building. Establishing priorities for processing and operations: Critical needs of each department are evaluated and prioritized. Written agreements for alternatives selected are prepared, with details specifying duration, termination conditions, system testing, cost, any special security procedures, procedure for the notification of system changes, hours of operation, the specific hardware and other equipment required for processing, personnel requirements, definition of the circumstances constituting an emergency, process to negotiate service extensions, guarantee of compatibility, availability, non-mainframe resource requirements, priorities, and other contractual issues. Collecting data: This includes various lists (employee backup position listing, critical telephone numbers list, master call list, master vendor list, notification checklist), inventories (communications equipment, documentation, office equipment, forms, insurance policies, workgroup and data center computer hardware, microcomputer hardware and software, office supply, off-site storage location equipment, telephones, etc.), distribution register, software and data files backup/retention schedules, temporary location specifications, any other such lists, materials, inventories, and documentation. Pre-formatted forms are often used to facilitate the data gathering process. Organizing and documenting a written plan Developing testing criteria and procedures: reasons for testing include Determining the feasibility and compatibility of backup facilities and procedures. Identifying areas in the plan that need modification. Providing training to the team managers and team members. Demonstrating the ability of the organization to recover. Providing motivation for maintaining and updating the disaster recovery plan. Testing the plan: An initial "dry run" of the plan is performed by conducting a structured walk-through test. An actual test-run must be performed. Problems are corrected. Initial testing can be plan is done in sections and after normal business hours to minimize disruptions. Subsequent tests occur during normal business hours. === Caveats/controversie

  Read more →