AI For Business Specialization

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

  • Imo.im

    Imo.im

    imo.im is a proprietary audio/video calling and instant messaging software service. It allows sending music, video, PDFs and other files, along with various free stickers. It supports encrypted group video and voice calls with up to 20 participants. According to its developer, the service possesses over 200 million users and over 50 million messages per day are sent through it. == History == The product was created as a web-based application in 2005 for accessing multiple chat platforms, including Facebook Messenger, Google Talk, Yahoo! Messenger, and Skype chat. It was developed by Pagebites, which is a subsidiary of Singularity IM, Inc. and required a subscriber's phone number to verify the users' account. In March 2014, support for all third-party messaging networks ended. In January 2018, the app reached 500 million installs. imo.im has implemented end-to-end encryption for its chats and calls, ensuring that the conversations remain private between the sender and receiver.

    Read more →
  • List of cryptography journals

    List of cryptography journals

    List of cryptography journals includes notable peer-reviewed academic journals that focus on cryptography, cryptanalysis, information security, and related areas in computer science and mathematics. == Notable journals == Cryptologia Designs, Codes and Cryptography IEEE Transactions on Information Theory International Journal of Information Security Journal of Cryptology Journal of Computer Security ACM Transactions on Privacy and Security Information Processing Letters Information and Computation

    Read more →
  • Sysomos

    Sysomos

    Sysomos Inc. is a Toronto-based social media analytics company owned by Outside Insight market leaders Meltwater. The company developed text analytics and machine learning technologies for user generated content, and served 80% of the top agencies and Fortune 500. == History == Sysomos was founded by Nilesh Bansal and Nick Koudas. The company is a spinoff of the University of Toronto research project BlogScope. The BlogScope project, which started in 2005, resulted in creation of the underlying content aggregation and analysis engine commercialized by Sysomos. The company raised venture capital in 2008 and was acquired by Marketwire in 2010. The company's original flagship product, Media Analysis Platform (MAP), mines and analyzes content from social media or user-generated content to create a picture of media coverage. Sysomos launched its flagship offering MAP in Sept 2007, followed by addition of Heartbeat to its product suite in 2009. In addition to the two main products, the company released FourWhere, a free location-based social search service that mashes up Foursquare in March 2010. The company also offers Sysomos Heartbeat which provides social media monitoring and engagement capabilities to communication professionals, brand managers and customer support groups. In 2013, Heartbeat was extended to add publishing components to deliver a complete end-to-end social media marketing platform. On July 6, 2010, it was announced that Marketwire, a press release distribution company, had acquired Sysomos. After the acquisition, Sysomos founders Nick Koudas and Nilesh Bansal, left Sysomos to start Aislelabs. In February 2015, Sysomos split from Marketwired, as an independent company, and appointed Adnan Ahmed as the new CEO. In March 2015, newly independent Sysomos launched a redesign for its Heartbeat product and a new API for its MAP product. In the same year, the company acquired Expion. In September 2016, Peter Heffring was announced as the new CEO. In April 2017, Sysomos showcased a new unified platform offering new insights. In April 2018, media monitoring firm Meltwater announced it had acquired Sysomos. The CEO of Sysomos, Peter Heffring, said the company will continue to operate as an independent unit of Meltwater. Heffring will run the social analytics division of Meltwater. == Reports == Inside Twitter series of reports is the most extensive third-party survey on Twitter's growth and demographics. Another extensive survey regarding the top 5% of most active Twitter users found that over 25% of all tweets are machine created. The report also confirms Twitter's international growth. Inside Facebook Pages report found that only four percent of pages have more than 10,000 fans, 0.76% of pages have more than 100,000 fans, and 0.05% of pages (or 297 in total) have more than a million fans. Inside YouTube reports focus more on video hosting services and YouTube.

    Read more →
  • Smart-ID

    Smart-ID

    Smart-ID is an electronic authentication tool developed by SK ID Solutions, an Estonian company. Users can log in to various electronic services and sign documents with an electronic signature. Smart-ID meets the European Union's eIDAS Regulation and the European Central Bank's standards for a secure authentication solution. Smart-ID is a Qualified Signature Creator Device (QSCD) that can issue a Qualified Electronic Signature (QES). The Smart-ID app is compatible with both iOS and Android devices and does not require a SIM card. By 2021, the Smart-ID application was launched in the Huawei AppGallery. As of May 2023, Smart-ID has 3,298,969 active users across the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia). Every month, the Smart-ID processes 79 million transactions. In March 2023, Smart-ID users made an exceptional 85 million transactions. == History == In November 2016, SK ID Solutions debuted the Smart-ID tool for the first time at its annual conference. In February 2017, eKool, Starman, and Tallinn Kaubamaja Grupp were the first to implement Smart-ID authentication in their e-services. In March 2017, Smart-ID was added as an authentication option to SEB bank and Swedbank's online banking in all three Baltic States. Dokobit, previously known as DigiDoc, began offering its clients the ability to use e-services using Smart-ID in April 2017. More than 100 service providers had implemented Smart-ID as an authentication solution for their services by November 2019. At its annual conference on November 8, 2018, SK ID Solutions revealed that Smart-ID had been certified as compatible with the QSCD[8] level, the highest level of qualified electronic signature in the European Union, following a rigorous certification process. As a result, the Smart-QES-level ID's electronic signature, the digital counterpart of a handwritten signature, is now available to all users who have registered with the tool. This signature is accepted by all European Union member states. On August 26, 2019, Estonian Information Systems Supervisory Authority experts reviewed Smart-ID (ISSA). Based on the methods provided in the eIDAS Regulation, the expert committee concluded that Smart-ID offers a high level of electronic identification assurance. SK ID Solutions and RIA struck an agreement in September 2019 that allows Smart-ID to authenticate Estonian state e-services via RIA's central authentication service, which is used by over 60 public authorities. Smart-ID accounts created three years ago have expired in January 2020. Therefore, renewing them and performing mandatory updates was necessary. In February 2020, SK ID Solutions announced that Smart-ID could be used to give digital signatures in the national digital signature software DigiDoc4, which up until this moment was only possible with ID cards via Mobile-ID. Users must have at least version 4.2.4.71 or later of the DigiDoc4 software installed on their computers to use this feature. Since February 2020, Smart-ID accounts can now be created with biometric information from an ID card or passport, but only by users who have previously used a Smart-ID account. Since October 2022, 13–17 years old minors in Lithuania are able to create a Smart-ID account using biometric information too. A parent or legal guardian must approve the registration. SK ID Solutions collaborated on the new solution with iProov from the United Kingdom and InnoValor from the Netherlands. TÜV Informationstechnik GmbH, a German certification company, assessed it. Since May 2023, Smart-ID can be used to submit company's annual reports in Estonia and digitally sign anything in the e-business register using your PIN2. == Overview == The Smart-ID app is available for download on Google Play and Apple's App Store. Android 4.4 and iOS 11 are the oldest supported operating system versions for Smart-ID. Smart-ID works on the premise of two-factor authentication, combining an intelligent device (something the user owns) with PINs (something the user knows). A new user must first authenticate themselves with an ID card or a mobile phone number and then confirm a PIN1 and PIN2 code, either manually or automatically produced. The first PIN is used to authenticate a person's identity when accessing e-banking or e-services, while the second PIN is used to support electronic signatures and authenticate transactions (e.g., transfers). The PIN1 code must be four digits long, while the PIN2 code must be five digits long. To log in to an e-service, the user must use Smart-ID as the authentication method and enter their unique Smart-ID user ID. A notification will open on the user's smart device where the software is installed and display a verification code. If the code matches the code presented to the user by the e-service, then the user can confirm the match by entering their PIN1 code. The user must verify the action with their PIN2 code when giving digital signatures. A Smart-ID account is valid for three years. The report can be updated, changed, and deleted at any given time, free of charge. Smart-ID is available in five languages: Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Russian, and English. An international survey conducted in 2021 revealed that Smart-ID is the most reliable authentication solution in Baltic countries. In January 2023, the number of times Smart-ID was used to access State Authentication Service (TARA) in Estonia has surpassed those of Mobile-ID and ID-cards for the first time since July 2022. == Security == Smart-ID is based on Cybernetica's SplitKey authentication and digital signature platform technology, for which the company has filed a patent application. Public key cryptography, digital signature methods, and critical public infrastructures are all used in the technology. The user's PIN is not saved on the device and is only needed to decrypt the private key in the Smart-ID app. When the user inputs the PIN, the private key is cracked, and the answer is transmitted to the Smart-ID server, where a portion of the key given by the app is joined with the server's encrypted key. The app will block the user from accessing it for three hours if they input the incorrect PIN three times in a row. If this happens once again, the app will lock for 24 hours. If this happens a third time, the account will be permanently disabled. PINs cannot be changed or recovered once an account has been created. The user must create a new account if the account is permanently blocked. Smart-ID uses the Apple and Google messaging networks to notify the app when new data is saved on its servers. == Phishing == In February 2019, unknown criminals attempted to create Smart-ID accounts with stolen IDs obtained via phishing customers' text messages and website addresses, according to a monthly report by the Estonian Information System Manager in April 2019. The Latvian Information Technology Security Incident Assessment Body Cert was also notified of these intrusions on March 1. Fraudsters sent emails to potential victims pretending to be bank representatives. The mails linked users to a phishing page after redirecting them to a phony bank login page. Victims were asked to log in using their identification information and PIN1 code. The fraudsters then began the process of generating a new Smart-ID account. As a result, the victim had to input a PIN2 number, which permitted the fraudster to finish setting up a new tab with the victim's personal information. Fraudsters in Estonia were able to log in to multiple e-services utilizing Smart-ID using a Smart-ID account and the victim's data. On behalf of the victims, fraudsters also employed online banking services. Later, the Estonian Information System Manager identified several victims, some of whom had also experienced financial losses. The Estonian Information System Manager requested a full report on the event from SK ID Solutions. The organization opted not to criticize the corporation after receiving the information, although it did propose that the procedure of creating Smart-ID accounts be reviewed. According to the Estonian Banking Association, Estonian banks have not discontinued using Smart-ID and do not think it is required. Smart-ID was exposed to a thorough review process in September 2019 to determine this authentication instrument's level of security. Reviewers discovered no flaws, and SK ID Solutions and the Estonian Information System Manager signed a contract. Estonia later introduced Smart-ID and other authentication mechanisms to the central public services portal.

    Read more →
  • The Most Dangerous Writing App

    The Most Dangerous Writing App

    The Most Dangerous Writing App is a web application for free writing that combats writer's block by deleting all progress if the user stops typing for five seconds. It is targeted at creative writers who want to write first drafts without worrying about editing or formatting. == Features == The app is designed to "shut down your inner editor and get you into a state of flow", referring to the psychological concept of being in a flow state. Users start a writing session by choosing a time or word limit, and can only save or download their work if they complete the set limit without interruption. An optional "hardcore mode" blurs out everything the user has written so far, making it impossible to edit before finishing the writing session. == History == The Most Dangerous Writing App was created by software engineer Manuel Ebert and was released as free, open source software on February 29, 2016. It was reviewed by Wired, Forbes, Vogue, Huffington Post, The Verge, The Next Web, and others. It has been used in free writing contests and is recommended by NaNoWriMo. In April 2019, The Most Dangerous Writing App was acquired by Squibler, but the original version remains freely accessible.

    Read more →
  • Visual cryptography

    Visual cryptography

    Visual cryptography is a cryptographic technique which allows visual information (pictures, text, etc.) to be encrypted in such a way that the decrypted information appears as a visual image. One of the best-known techniques has been credited to Moni Naor and Adi Shamir, who developed it in 1994. They demonstrated a visual secret sharing scheme, where a binary image was broken up into n shares so that only someone with all n shares could decrypt the image, while any n − 1 shares revealed no information about the original image. Each share was printed on a separate transparency, and decryption was performed by overlaying the shares. When all n shares were overlaid, the original image would appear. There are several generalizations of the basic scheme including k-out-of-n visual cryptography, and using opaque sheets but illuminating them by multiple sets of identical illumination patterns under the recording of only one single-pixel detector, which exposed the image. Using a similar idea, transparencies can be used to implement a one-time pad encryption, where one transparency is a shared random pad, and another transparency acts as the ciphertext. Normally, there is an expansion of space requirement in visual cryptography. But if one of the two shares is structured recursively, the efficiency of visual cryptography can be increased to 100%. Some antecedents of visual cryptography are in patents from the 1960s. Other antecedents are in the work on perception and secure communication. Visual cryptography can be used to protect biometric templates in which decryption does not require any complex computations. == Example == In this example, the binary image has been split into two component images. Each component image has a pair of pixels for every pixel in the original image. These pixel pairs are shaded black or white according to the following rule: if the original image pixel was black, the pixel pairs in the component images must be complementary; randomly shade one ■□, and the other □■. When these complementary pairs are overlapped, they will appear dark gray. On the other hand, if the original image pixel was white, the pixel pairs in the component images must match: both ■□ or both □■. When these matching pairs are overlapped, they will appear light gray. So, when the two component images are superimposed, the original image appears. However, without the other component, a component image reveals no information about the original image; it is indistinguishable from a random pattern of ■□ / □■ pairs. Moreover, if you have one component image, you can use the shading rules above to produce a counterfeit component image that combines with it to produce any image at all. == (2, n) visual cryptography sharing case == Sharing a secret with an arbitrary number of people, n, such that at least 2 of them are required to decode the secret is one form of the visual secret sharing scheme presented by Moni Naor and Adi Shamir in 1994. In this scheme we have a secret image which is encoded into n shares printed on transparencies. The shares appear random and contain no decipherable information about the underlying secret image, however if any 2 of the shares are stacked on top of one another the secret image becomes decipherable by the human eye. Every pixel from the secret image is encoded into multiple subpixels in each share image using a matrix to determine the color of the pixels. In the (2, n) case, a white pixel in the secret image is encoded using a matrix from the following set, where each row gives the subpixel pattern for one of the components: {all permutations of the columns of} : C 0 = [ 1 0 . . . 0 1 0 . . . 0 . . . 1 0 . . . 0 ] . {\displaystyle \mathbf {C_{0}=} {\begin{bmatrix}1&0&...&0\\1&0&...&0\\...\\1&0&...&0\end{bmatrix}}.} While a black pixel in the secret image is encoded using a matrix from the following set: {all permutations of the columns of} : C 1 = [ 1 0 . . . 0 0 1 . . . 0 . . . 0 0 . . . 1 ] . {\displaystyle \mathbf {C_{1}=} {\begin{bmatrix}1&0&...&0\\0&1&...&0\\...\\0&0&...&1\end{bmatrix}}.} For instance in the (2,2) sharing case (the secret is split into 2 shares and both shares are required to decode the secret) we use complementary matrices to share a black pixel and identical matrices to share a white pixel. Stacking the shares we have all the subpixels associated with the black pixel now black while 50% of the subpixels associated with the white pixel remain white. == Cheating the (2, n) visual secret sharing scheme == Horng et al. proposed a method that allows n − 1 colluding parties to cheat an honest party in visual cryptography. They take advantage of knowing the underlying distribution of the pixels in the shares to create new shares that combine with existing shares to form a new secret message of the cheaters choosing. We know that 2 shares are enough to decode the secret image using the human visual system. But examining two shares also gives some information about the 3rd share. For instance, colluding participants may examine their shares to determine when they both have black pixels and use that information to determine that another participant will also have a black pixel in that location. Knowing where black pixels exist in another party's share allows them to create a new share that will combine with the predicted share to form a new secret message. In this way a set of colluding parties that have enough shares to access the secret code can cheat other honest parties. == Visual steganography == 2×2 subpixels can also encode a binary image in each component image. For example, each white pixel of each component image could be represented by two black subpixels, while each black pixel represented by three black subpixels. When overlaid, each white pixel of the secret image is represented by three black subpixels, while each black pixel is represented by all four subpixels black. Each corresponding pixel in the component images is randomly rotated to avoid orientation leaking information about the secret image. == In popular culture == In "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling", a 1967 episode of TV series The Prisoner, the protagonist uses a visual cryptography overlay of multiple transparencies to reveal a secret message – the location of a scientist friend who had gone into hiding.

    Read more →
  • Feistel cipher

    Feistel cipher

    In cryptography, a Feistel cipher (also known as Luby–Rackoff block cipher) is a symmetric structure used in the construction of block ciphers, named after the German-born physicist and cryptographer Horst Feistel, who did pioneering research while working for IBM; it is also commonly known as a Feistel network. A large number of block ciphers use the scheme, including the US Data Encryption Standard, the Soviet/Russian GOST (aka Magma) and the more recent Blowfish and Twofish ciphers. In a Feistel cipher, encryption and decryption are very similar operations, and both consist of iteratively running a function called a "round function" a fixed number of times. == History == Many modern symmetric block ciphers are based on Feistel networks. Feistel networks were first seen commercially in IBM's Lucifer cipher, designed by Horst Feistel and Don Coppersmith in 1973. Feistel networks gained respectability when the U.S. Federal Government adopted the DES (a cipher based on Lucifer, with changes made by the NSA) in 1976. Like other components of the DES, the iterative nature of the Feistel construction makes implementing the cryptosystem in hardware easier (particularly on the hardware available at the time of DES's design). == Design == A Feistel network uses a round function, a function which takes two inputs – a data block and a subkey – and returns one output of the same size as the data block. In each round, the round function is run on half of the data to be encrypted, and its output is XORed with the other half of the data. This is repeated a fixed number of times, and the final output is the encrypted data. An important advantage of Feistel networks compared to other cipher designs such as substitution–permutation networks (SP-networks) is that the entire operation is guaranteed to be invertible (that is, encrypted data can be decrypted), even if the round function is not itself invertible. The round function can be made arbitrarily complicated, since it does not need to be designed to be invertible. Furthermore, the encryption and decryption operations are very similar, even identical in some cases, requiring only a reversal of the key schedule. Therefore, the size of the code or circuitry required to implement such a cipher is nearly halved. Unlike SP-networks, Feistel networks also do not depend on a substitution box that could cause timing side-channels in software implementations. == Theoretical work == The structure and properties of Feistel ciphers have been extensively analyzed by cryptographers. Michael Luby and Charles Rackoff analyzed the Feistel cipher construction and proved that if the round function is a cryptographically secure pseudorandom function, with Ki used as the seed, then 3 rounds are sufficient to make the block cipher a pseudorandom permutation, while 4 rounds are sufficient to make it a "strong" pseudorandom permutation (which means that it remains pseudorandom even to an adversary who gets oracle access to its inverse permutation). Because of this very important result of Luby and Rackoff, Feistel ciphers are sometimes called Luby–Rackoff block ciphers. Further theoretical work has generalized the construction somewhat and given more precise bounds for security. == Construction details == Let F {\displaystyle \mathrm {F} } be the round function and let K 0 , K 1 , … , K n {\displaystyle K_{0},K_{1},\ldots ,K_{n}} be the sub-keys for the rounds 0 , 1 , … , n {\displaystyle 0,1,\ldots ,n} respectively. Then the basic operation is as follows: Split the plaintext block into two equal pieces: ( L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}} , R 0 {\displaystyle R_{0}} ). For each round i = 0 , 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=0,1,\dots ,n} , compute L i + 1 = R i , {\displaystyle L_{i+1}=R_{i},} R i + 1 = L i ⊕ F ( R i , K i ) , {\displaystyle R_{i+1}=L_{i}\oplus \mathrm {F} (R_{i},K_{i}),} where ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } means XOR. Then the ciphertext is ( R n + 1 , L n + 1 ) {\displaystyle (R_{n+1},L_{n+1})} . Decryption of a ciphertext ( R n + 1 , L n + 1 ) {\displaystyle (R_{n+1},L_{n+1})} is accomplished by computing for i = n , n − 1 , … , 0 {\displaystyle i=n,n-1,\ldots ,0} R i = L i + 1 , {\displaystyle R_{i}=L_{i+1},} L i = R i + 1 ⊕ F ⁡ ( L i + 1 , K i ) . {\displaystyle L_{i}=R_{i+1}\oplus \operatorname {F} (L_{i+1},K_{i}).} Then ( L 0 , R 0 ) {\displaystyle (L_{0},R_{0})} is the plaintext again. The diagram illustrates both encryption and decryption. Note the reversal of the subkey order for decryption; this is the only difference between encryption and decryption. === Unbalanced Feistel cipher === Unbalanced Feistel ciphers use a modified structure where L 0 {\displaystyle L_{0}} and R 0 {\displaystyle R_{0}} are not of equal lengths. The Skipjack cipher is an example of such a cipher. The Texas Instruments digital signature transponder uses a proprietary unbalanced Feistel cipher to perform challenge–response authentication. The Thorp shuffle is an extreme case of an unbalanced Feistel cipher in which one side is a single bit. This has better provable security than a balanced Feistel cipher but requires more rounds. There exists Type-1, Type-2, and Type-3 Feistel networks, where the Feistel function is one fourth the size of the block but operates a varying number of times within one round. === Other uses === The Feistel construction is also used in cryptographic algorithms other than block ciphers. For example, the optimal asymmetric encryption padding (OAEP) scheme uses a simple Feistel network to randomize ciphertexts in certain asymmetric-key encryption schemes. A generalized Feistel algorithm can be used to create strong permutations on small domains of size not a power of two (see format-preserving encryption). === Feistel networks as a design component === Whether the entire cipher is a Feistel cipher or not, Feistel-like networks can be used as a component of a cipher's design. For example, MISTY1 is a Feistel cipher using a three-round Feistel network in its round function, Skipjack is a modified Feistel cipher using a Feistel network in its G permutation, and Threefish (part of Skein) is a non-Feistel block cipher that uses a Feistel-like MIX function. == List of Feistel ciphers == Feistel or modified Feistel: Generalised Feistel: CAST-256 CLEFIA MacGuffin RC2 RC6 Skipjack SMS4

    Read more →
  • IBM remote batch terminals

    IBM remote batch terminals

    The IBM 2780 and the IBM 3780 are devices developed by IBM for performing remote job entry (RJE) and other batch functions over telephone lines; they communicate with the mainframe via Binary Synchronous Communications (BSC or Bisync) and replaced older terminals using synchronous transmit-receive (STR). In addition, IBM has developed workstation programs for the 1130, 360/20, 2922, System/360 other than 360/20, System/370 and System/3. == 2780 Data Transmission Terminal == The 2780 Data Transmission Terminal first shipped in 1967. It consists of: A line printer similar to the IBM 1443 that can print up to 240 lines per minute (lpm), or 300 lpm using an extremely restricted character set. A card reader/punch unit, similar to an IBM 1442, that can read up to 400 cards per minute (cpm) and can punch up to 355 cpm. A line buffer that stores data received or to be transmitted over the communications line. A binary synchronous adapter which controls the flow of data over the communications line. The 2780 is capable of local (offline) card to print operation. It comes in four models: Model 1: Can read punched cards and transmit the data to a remote host computer, and can receive and print data sent by the host. Model 2: Same as Model 1 but adds the ability to punch card data received from the host. Model 3: Can only print data received from the host, but not send data to it. Model 4: Can read and punch card data, but has no printing capabilities. The 2780 uses a dedicated communication line at speeds of 1200, 2000, 2400 or 4800 bits per second. It is a half duplex device, although full duplex lines can be used with some increase in throughput. It can communicate in Transcode (a 6-bit code), 8-bit EBCDIC, or 7-bit ASCII. == 2770 Data Communication System == The 2770, announced in 1969, "was said to surpass all other IBM terminals in the variety of available input-output devices." The 2770 was developed by the IBM General Products Division (GPD) in Rochester, MN. It comes standard with a desktop terminal with keyboard. The printer and other devices (any two in any combination) can be attached to the 2772 Multi-Purpose Control unit. Possible devices include: 50 Magnetic Data Inscriber 545 Card Punch Model 3 (non-printing) or Model 4 (printing) 1017 Paper Tape Reader 1018 Paper Tape Punch 1053 Printer Model 1 1255 Magnetic Character Reader Models 1, 2 or 3 2203 Printer Model A1 or A2 2213 Printer Model 1 or 2 2265 Display Station Model 2 2502 Card Reader Model A1 or A2 5496 Data Recorder == 3780 Data Communications Terminal == In May 1972, IBM announced the IBM 3780, an enhanced version of the 2780. The 3780 was developed by IBM's Data Processing Division (DPD). There is one model, with an optional card punch. The 3780 drops Transcode support and incorporates several performance enhancements. It supports compression of blank fields in data using run-length encoding. It provides the ability to interleave data between devices, introduces double buffering, and adds support for the Wait-before-transmit ACKnowledgement (WACK) and Temporary Text Delay (TTD) Binary Synchronous control characters. The integrated punched card unit can read cards at 600 cards per minute. The integrated printer is rated at 300, 350 or 425 lines per minute based on characters set (63, 52 or 39 characters). The 3781 Card Punch is an optional feature. It punches 160 columns per second, or 91 cards per minute if all 80 columns are punched. The IBM 2780 and 3780 were later emulated on various types of equipment, including eventually the personal computer. A notable early emulation was the DN60, by Digital Equipment Corporation in the late 1970s. == 3770 Data Communications System == In 1974 IBM Data Processing Division (DPD) offered a successor to the 3780, called the 3770 Data Communications System, supporting SDLC, BSC, BSC Multi-leaving and SNA, depending on the configuration. The 3770 is a family of desk console style terminals that offers a variety of keyboard and printer combinations as well as I/O equipment attachment and communications features. The terminals come built into a desk and include the following models: 3771 Communication Terminal (optional card reader, optional card punch, wire matrix printer) Models 1 (40 cps printer), 2 (80 cps printer), and 3 (120 cps printer). 3773 Communication Terminal (diskette, wire matrix printer) Models 1 (40 cps printer), 2 (80 cps printer), and 3 (120 cps printer). Each model has a P version which adds some programming features. 3774 Communication Terminal (optional card reader, optional card punch, optional belt printer, wire matrix printer) Models 1 (80 cps printer), and 2 (120 cps printer). Each model has a P version which adds some programming features, a 480-character display and a non-removable diskette. 3775 Communication Terminal (optional card reader, optional card punch, optional diskette, belt printer) Model 1 (120 lpm printer). The model P1 adds some programming features, a 480-character display and a non-removable diskette. 3776 Communication Terminal (optional card reader, optional card punch, optional diskette, belt printer) Models 1 (300 lpm printer) and 2 (400 lpm printer). Models 3 and 4 are similar to models 1 and 2. 3777 Communication Terminal (optional card reader, optional diskette, train printer) Model 1 (up to 1000 lpm printer depending on character set). Model 2 adds an optional card punch, model 3 adds an optional magnetic tape drive and model 4 replaces the train printer with a slower model called the IBM 3262. The model 4 also allows a second, optional, 3262. The following I/O devices can be attached to a 3770 terminal: IBM 2502 Card Reader: Models A1 (up to 150 card per minute), A2 (up to 300 cards per minute) or A3 (up to 400 cards per minute) IBM 3203 Printer Model 3: 1000 LPM using 48 character set IBM 3501 Card Reader: Up to 50 cards per minute desktop unit IBM 3521 Card Punch: Up to 50 cards per minute IBM 3782 Card Attachment unit, which allows the 2502 or 3521 to be attached to any terminal except the 3777 IBM 3784 Line Printer, can be attached to a 3774 as a second printer. Up to 155 LPM with 48 characters set print belt. == Workstation programs == IBM distributes workstation programs with systems software including OS/360 Attached Support Processor (ASP) Houston Automatic Spooling Priority (HASP and HASP II) Operating System/Virtual Storage 1 (OS/VS1) Operating System/Virtual Storage 2 (OS/VS2 MVS) Release 2 through 3.8 MVS versions from MVS/SP Version 1 through z/OS Priority Output Writers, Execution processors and input Readers (POWER) Remote Spooling Communications Subsystem (RSCS) Except for the RJE workstation programs in OS/360, these programs use a variation of BSC known as Multi-leaving. In addition, IBM provides separately ordered workstation programs using BSC. Systems Network Architecture (SNA) and TCP/IP. Workstation programs are available from IBM and third-party vendors to support all of these protocols: 2770/3770 2780/3780 Multileaving Network Job Entry (NJE) OS/360 RJE SNA TCP/IP

    Read more →
  • Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems

    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 →
  • Virtual influencer

    Virtual influencer

    A virtual influencer, sometimes described as a virtual persona or virtual model, is a computer-generated fictional character that can be used for a variety of marketing-related purposes, but most frequently for social media marketing, in lieu of online human "influencers". Most virtual influencers are designed using computer graphics and motion capture technology to resemble real people in realistic situations. Common derivatives of virtual influencers include VTubers, which broadly refer to online entertainers and YouTubers who represent themselves using virtual avatars instead of their physical selves. == History == Virtual influencers are fundamentally synonymous with virtual idols, which originate from Japan's anime and Japanese idol culture that dates back to the 1980s. The first virtual idol created was Lynn Minmay, a fictional singer and main character of the anime television series Super Dimension Fortress Macross (1982) and the animated film adaptation Macross: Do You Remember Love? (1984). Minmay's success led to the production of more Japanese virtual idols, such as EVE from the Japanese cyberpunk anime Megazone 23 (1985), and Sharon Apple in Macross Plus (1994). Virtual idols were not always well received – in 1995, Japanese talent agency Horipro created Kyoko Date, which was inspired by the Macross franchise and dating sim games such as Tokimeki Memorial (1994). Date failed to gain commercial success despite drawing headlines for her debut as a CGI idol, largely due to technical limitations leading to issues such as unnatural movements, an issue also known as the uncanny valley. Since their inception, many virtual idols created have achieved continual success, with notable names including the Vocaloid singer Hatsune Miku, and the VTuber Kizuna AI. Technological advancements have also enabled production teams to use artificial intelligence and advanced techniques to customize the personalities and behavior of virtual idols. Due to modern-day advancements in technology, many virtual idols have held real-life tours and events. Notable ones include Hatsune Miku's titular tour Miku Expo and Hololive's concerts with many of their idols from their English, Japanese and Indonesian branches. Some notable events including virtual singers and influencers have included: Hatsune Miku opening for Lady Gaga in 2014 and Hoshimachi Suisei's concerts at the famous Budokan venue in Japan and her addition to the Forbes Japan list of '30 Under 30' individuals who are changing the world in their respective fields. == Benefits and criticism == From a branding perspective, virtual influencers are perceived to be much less likely to be mired in scandals. In China, celebrities caught in bad publicity such as singer Wang Leehom and entertainer Kris Wu have heightened the appeal of virtual influencers, since their existence relies entirely on computer-generated imagery and they are therefore unlikely to cause any damage to a brand's image by association. Some studies have also suggested that Generation Z consumers have a unique appetite for virtual idols and influencers, since they grew up in the age of the internet. Studies also show that human-like appearance of virtual influencers show higher message credibility than anime-like virtual influencers. Scholars and commentators have also questioned the ethics and cultural impact of virtual influencers, arguing that computer-generated personas can entrench unrealistic beauty standards while diffusing accountability for labor, identity, and consent. Business and marketing analysts have also warned that disclosure and governance remain inconsistent, recommending clearer guardrails and transparency when brands deploy synthetic spokespeople. In 2025, reporting highlighted concerns that AI-driven "virtual humans" could displace human creators and sales workers, intensifying debates over the future of creative labor and authenticity online. == Notable examples == === Virtual bands === Eternity - A South Korean virtual idol group formed by Pulse9. Gorillaz - A virtual band formed in 1998. K/DA - A virtual K-pop girl group created as part of the League of Legends video game franchise. MAVE: - A South Korean virtual girl group formed in 2023 by Metaverse Entertainment. Pentakill - A virtual heavy metal band created as part of the League of Legends video game franchise. Plave (band) - A South Korean virtual boy band formed by VLast. Squid Sisters and Off the Hook - Two virtual pop idol duos as part of the Splatoon series. Studio Killers - A Finnish-Danish-British virtual band formed in 2011. === Vocaloids === Hatsune Miku (modeled after Saki Fujita) Kagamine Rin/Len (modeled after Asami Shimoda) Megurine Luka (modeled after Yū Asakawa) Meiko (modeled after Meiko Haigō) Kaito (modeled after Naoto Fūga) === VTubers === Kano Kizuna AI Neuro-sama VShojo Ironmouse Projekt Melody Nijisanji Hololive Akai Haato Gawr Gura Hoshimachi Suisei Natsuiro Matsuri === Other examples === Ami Yamato Crazy Frog FN Meka IA Kuki AI Kyoko Date Kyra Miquela Naevis Shudu Gram

    Read more →
  • Public Services Network

    Public Services Network

    The Public Services Network (PSN) is a UK government's high-performance network, which helps public sector organisations work together, reduce duplication and share resources. It unified the provision of network infrastructure across the United Kingdom public sector into an interconnected "network of networks" to increase efficiency and reduce overall public expenditure. It is now a legacy network and public sector organisations are being migrated to using services on the public internet. == Origins == The Public Services Network (PSN) was launched officially as part of the Transformational Government Strategy commencing in 2005, under the original name of the Public Sector Network. Prior to this, some parts of local government had already successfully implemented the concept. The Hampshire Public Services Network (HPSN) was the first PSN, launched in 1999, followed closely by Kent County Councils partnerships with the KPSN. The HPSN, encompassing all of the borough, district and unitary councils, with the County Council, as well as the Fire Services, the Isle of Wight Council and 540 schools. National PSN technical and architecture compliance criteria were established from 2007, by GDS working with local government leaders from Socitm (the Society of Information Technology Management) on the National CIO Council and the Local CIO Council. The PSN's aim was to bring public services organisations with a common interest onto a single, coherent and standards-based ‘network of networks’. This would create influence, economies of scale and a commonality of standards for secure and easy inter-connection between public service organisations. The original concept of a network of networks strategy was based upon the work already undertaken in local government and recognition of Communities of Interest (COI) within the Criminal Justice Sector during work by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform (OCJR) between 2005 and 2007 to enable data sharing across business units. In this context a COI was defined as groups of Government departments and external partners who in combination provided services within a specific area of operation and used the same data, with a similar risk profile, shared risk appetite and common governance framework. Historically each group member had implemented their own networks and standards of operation in isolation with little or no consideration as to how services and data may be shared and resulting in increased costs of operation. The Network of Networks strategy proposed within OCJR recommended the creation of specific networks based upon these Communities of Interest which were joined together through data interchange gateways supporting common standards. Under this approach networks would be arranged by data type and business functions such as Criminal Justice, Health and Social Care, Defence and Intelligence or Public Finance rather than solely on established departmental boundaries. Within a COI, trust relationships and data interchange are readily supported, enabling data sharing without a need to cross network boundaries and providing benefits of scale without the challenges and compromises intrinsic to homogeneous cross sector networks. Data is made available without a need to transport it between organisations and control is retained by the data originator. In early 2007 a group of UK Government department CTOs in conjunction with the Office for Government Commerce Buying Solutions (OGC BS) established the vision for a single commonly provided, procured and managed public sector voice and data network infrastructure to replace the multitude of separately procured and managed networks serving various segments of the UK public sector; Education, Health, Central Government, Local Government etc. In 2008 an Industry Working Group was established to document the objectives and requirements more clearly. Their report set out the architectural and commercial principles as well as anticipated security, service management, governance and transition arrangements. == Architecture == The PSN comprises a core network, the Government Conveyancing Network or GCN provided by GCN Service Providers or GCNSPs. The GCN interconnects multiple operator networks, termed Direct Network Service Providers or DNSPs. Subscriber organisations contract to a connection from a local participating DNSP, connect via that to GCN and hence onwards to other interconnected networks and services. The GCN network is entirely based on IPv4 and MPLS and the GCNSPs are not currently mandated to provide IPv6, though they should have a roadmap to implementing it if and when required. == Commercial framework == In 2010 Virgin Media Business, BT, Cable & Wireless and Global Crossing signed Deeds of Undertaking (DoU) and subsequently achieved accreditation for providing GCN and IP VPN services. In March 2012, BT, Cable & Wireless, Capita Business Services, Eircom, Fujitsu, Kcom, Level 3, Logicalis, MDNX, Thales, Updata and Virgin Media Business were successful bidders for the initial two-year PSN Connectivity framework. In June 2012, 29 companies were confirmed as suppliers of ICT services to the UK public sector under the Government's PSN Services framework contract. Apart from most of the previous suppliers, additional companies also included 2e2, Airwave Solutions, Azzurri Communications, Cassidian, CSC Computer Sciences, Computacenter, Daisy Communications, Easynet Global Services, EE, Freedom Communications, Icom Holdings, NextiraOne, PageOne Communications, Phoenix IT Group, Siemens Communications, Specialist Computer Centres, Telefónica, telent Technology Services, Uniworld Communications and Vodafone. == Governance == The PSN is managed within the Cabinet Office where it is part of the Government Digital Service. == Early implementations == There were already notable initiatives in progress in county council areas, demonstrating public sector network integration in both the Hampshire HPSN2 network and in Kent's community network. Project Pathway was established as a pilot linking these two county-wide networks, with Virgin Media Business and Global Crossing the subscriber and GCN network elements. Staffordshire County Council was the first council in England to establish a PSN that included the county's NHS Health partners. Other county councils have since followed the leads of these councils. == Transition == Centrally procured public sector networks are expected to migrate across to the PSN framework as they reach the end of their contract terms, either through an interim framework or directly. The Government Secure Intranet (GSi) contracts expired in September 2011, running on to 12 February 2012 and were replaced by the transitional Government Secure Intranet Convergence Framework (GCF). The Managed Telephony Service (MTS) contract expired on 31 December 2011 and was replaced by the Managed Telephony Convergence Framework (MTCF). == Future plan == In a blog post published on 20 January 2017, Government Digital Service announced that the Technology Leaders Network (TLN) had agreed that government was starting a journey away from the PSN. This was because using the Internet was considered suitable for the vast majority of the work that the public sector does. The blog post confirmed that the 'move was not going to happen immediately' and stated that 'there's quite a bit of work to do across the public sector to prepare for the changes'. It also stated that it was too early for a full timeline to be provided, although all PSN-connected organisations would be updated as the process evolved. The blog post confirmed that organisations that need to access services that are only available on the PSN would still need to connect to it for the time being and continue to meet its assurance requirements. In a blog post published on 16 March 2017, Government Digital Service (GDS) set out its plans for PSN assurance. The blog post confirmed that the PSN compliance process wasn't 'going anywhere, certainly for a while yet'. It explained that the TLN agreed that – as one of the only recognised, externally accredited, cross-government common assurance standards – it 'needs to live on far beyond the end of the physical PSN network'. Government Digital Service, along with the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and the Cyber and Government Security Directorate, are now looking at ways to expand and reframe PSN compliance in a new context that, while retaining the assurance principles that are the basis of the existing process, will aim to improve the process. A GDS blog post titled 'The road to closing down the PSN' published on 8 September 2020 describes how the public sector will migrate away from the PSN. The Cabinet Office has set up a programme called Future Networks for Government (FN4G) to help organisations move away from the PSN.

    Read more →
  • G.9963

    G.9963

    Recommendation G.9963 is a home networking standard under development at the International Telecommunication Union standards sector, the ITU-T. It was begun in 2010 by ITU-T to add multiple-input and multiple-output (known as MIMO) capabilities to the G.hn standard originally defined in Recommendation G.9960. The standard is also known as "G.hn-mimo". As part of the family of G.hn standards, G.9963 was endorsed by the HomeGrid Forum.

    Read more →
  • Multi-model database

    Multi-model database

    In the field of database design, a multi-model database is a database management system designed to support multiple data models against a single, integrated backend. In contrast, most database management systems are organized around a single data model that determines how data can be organized, stored, and manipulated. Document, graph, relational, and key–value models are examples of data models that may be supported by a multi-model database. == Background == The relational data model became popular after its publication by Edgar F. Codd in 1970. Due to increasing requirements for horizontal scalability and fault tolerance, NoSQL databases became prominent after 2009. NoSQL databases use a variety of data models, with document, graph, and key–value models being popular. A multi-model database is a database that can store, index and query data in more than one model. For some time, databases have primarily supported only one model, such as: relational database, document-oriented database, graph database or triplestore. A database that combines many of these is multi-model. This should not be confused with multimodal database systems such as Pixeltable or ApertureDB, which focus on unified management of different media types (images, video, audio, text) rather than different data models. For some time, it was all but forgotten (or considered irrelevant) that there were any other database models besides relational. The relational model and notion of third normal form were the default standard for all data storage. However, prior to the dominance of relational data modeling, from about 1980 to 2005, the hierarchical database model was commonly used. Since 2000 or 2010, many NoSQL models that are non-relational, including documents, triples, key–value stores and graphs are popular. Arguably, geospatial data, temporal data, and text data are also separate models, though indexed, queryable text data is generally termed a "search engine" rather than a database. The first time the word "multi-model" has been associated to the databases was on May 30, 2012 in Cologne, Germany, during the Luca Garulli's key note "NoSQL Adoption – What’s the Next Step?". Luca Garulli envisioned the evolution of the 1st generation NoSQL products into new products with more features able to be used by multiple use cases. The idea of multi-model databases can be traced back to Object–Relational Data Management Systems (ORDBMS) in the early 1990s and in a more broader scope even to federated and integrated DBMSs in the early 1980s. An ORDBMS system manages different types of data such as relational, object, text and spatial by plugging domain specific data types, functions and index implementations into the DBMS kernels. A multi-model database is most directly a response to the "polyglot persistence" approach of knitting together multiple database products, each handing a different model, to achieve a multi-model capability as described by Martin Fowler. This strategy has two major disadvantages: it leads to a significant increase in operational complexity, and there is no support for maintaining data consistency across the separate data stores, so multi-model databases have begun to fill in this gap. Multi-model databases are intended to offer the data modeling advantages of polyglot persistence, without its disadvantages. Operational complexity, in particular, is reduced through the use of a single data store. == Benchmarking multi-model databases == As more and more platforms are proposed to deal with multi-model data, there are a few works on benchmarking multi-model databases. For instance, Pluciennik, Oliveira, and UniBench reviewed existing multi-model databases and made an evaluation effort towards comparing multi-model databases and other SQL and NoSQL databases respectively. They pointed out that the advantages of multi-model databases over single-model databases are as follows : == Architecture == The main difference between the available multi-model databases is related to their architectures. Multi-model databases can support different models either within the engine or via different layers on top of the engine. Some products may provide an engine which supports documents and graphs while others provide layers on top of a key-key store. With a layered architecture, each data model is provided via its own component. == User-defined data models == In addition to offering multiple data models in a single data store, some databases allow developers to easily define custom data models. This capability is enabled by ACID transactions with high performance and scalability. In order for a custom data model to support concurrent updates, the database must be able to synchronize updates across multiple keys. ACID transactions, if they are sufficiently performant, allow such synchronization. JSON documents, graphs, and relational tables can all be implemented in a manner that inherits the horizontal scalability and fault-tolerance of the underlying data store. == Theoretical Foundation for Multi-Model Databases == The traditional theory of relations is not enough to accurately describe multi-model database systems. Recent research is focused on developing a new theoretical foundation for these systems. Category theory can provide a unified, rigorous language for modeling, integrating, and transforming different data models. By representing multi-model data as sets and their relationships as functions or relations within the Set category, we can create a formal framework to describe, manipulate, and understand various data models and how they interact.

    Read more →
  • Cryptovirology

    Cryptovirology

    Cryptovirology refers to the study of cryptography use in malware, such as ransomware and asymmetric backdoors. Traditionally, cryptography and its applications are defensive in nature, and provide privacy, authentication, and security to users. Cryptovirology employs a twist on cryptography, showing that it can also be used offensively. It can be used to mount extortion based attacks that cause loss of access to information, loss of confidentiality, and information leakage, tasks which cryptography typically prevents. The field was born with the observation that public-key cryptography can be used to break the symmetry between what an antivirus analyst sees regarding malware and what the attacker sees. The antivirus analyst sees a public key contained in the malware, whereas the attacker sees the public key contained in the malware as well as the corresponding private key (outside the malware) since the attacker created the key pair for the attack. The public key allows the malware to perform trapdoor one-way operations on the victim's computer that only the attacker can undo. == Overview == The field encompasses covert malware attacks in which the attacker securely steals private information such as symmetric keys, private keys, PRNG state, and the victim's data. Examples of such covert attacks are asymmetric backdoors. An asymmetric backdoor is a backdoor (e.g., in a cryptosystem) that can be used only by the attacker, even after it is found. This contrasts with the traditional backdoor that is symmetric, i.e., anyone that finds it can use it. Kleptography, a subfield of cryptovirology, is the study of asymmetric backdoors in key generation algorithms, digital signature algorithms, key exchanges, pseudorandom number generators, encryption algorithms, and other cryptographic algorithms. The NIST Dual EC DRBG random bit generator has an asymmetric backdoor in it. The EC-DRBG algorithm utilizes the discrete-log kleptogram from kleptography, which by definition makes the EC-DRBG a cryptotrojan. Like ransomware, the EC-DRBG cryptotrojan contains and uses the attacker's public key to attack the host system. The cryptographer Ari Juels indicated that NSA effectively orchestrated a kleptographic attack on users of the Dual EC DRBG pseudorandom number generation algorithm and that, although security professionals and developers have been testing and implementing kleptographic attacks since 1996, "you would be hard-pressed to find one in actual use until now." Due to public outcry about this cryptovirology attack, NIST rescinded the EC-DRBG algorithm from the NIST SP 800-90 standard. Covert information leakage attacks carried out by cryptoviruses, cryptotrojans, and cryptoworms that, by definition, contain and use the public key of the attacker is a major theme in cryptovirology. In "deniable password snatching," a cryptovirus installs a cryptotrojan that asymmetrically encrypts host data and covertly broadcasts it. This makes it available to everyone, noticeable by no one (except the attacker), and only decipherable by the attacker. An attacker caught installing the cryptotrojan claims to be a virus victim. An attacker observed receiving the covert asymmetric broadcast is one of the thousands, if not millions of receivers, and exhibits no identifying information whatsoever. The cryptovirology attack achieves "end-to-end deniability." It is a covert asymmetric broadcast of the victim's data. Cryptovirology also encompasses the use of private information retrieval (PIR) to allow cryptoviruses to search for and steal host data without revealing the data searched for even when the cryptotrojan is under constant surveillance. By definition, such a cryptovirus carries within its own coding sequence the query of the attacker and the necessary PIR logic to apply the query to host systems. == History == The first cryptovirology attack and discussion of the concept was by Adam L. Young and Moti Yung, at the time called "cryptoviral extortion" and it was presented at the 1996 IEEE Security & Privacy conference. In this attack, a cryptovirus, cryptoworm, or cryptotrojan contains the public key of the attacker and hybrid encrypts the victim's files. The malware prompts the user to send the asymmetric ciphertext to the attacker who will decipher it and return the symmetric decryption key it contains for a fee. The victim needs the symmetric key to decrypt the encrypted files if there is no way to recover the original files (e.g., from backups). The 1996 IEEE paper predicted that cryptoviral extortion attackers would one day demand e-money, long before Bitcoin even existed. Many years later, the media relabeled cryptoviral extortion as ransomware. In 2016, cryptovirology attacks on healthcare providers reached epidemic levels, prompting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to issue a Fact Sheet on Ransomware and HIPAA. The fact sheet states that when electronic protected health information is encrypted by ransomware, a breach has occurred, and the attack therefore constitutes a disclosure that is not permitted under HIPAA, the rationale being that an adversary has taken control of the information. Sensitive data might never leave the victim organization, but the break-in may have allowed data to be sent out undetected. California enacted a law that defines the introduction of ransomware into a computer system with the intent of extortion as being against the law. == Examples == === Tremor virus === While viruses in the wild have used cryptography in the past, the only purpose of such usage of cryptography was to avoid detection by antivirus software. For example, the tremor virus used polymorphism as a defensive technique in an attempt to avoid detection by anti-virus software. Though cryptography does assist in such cases to enhance the longevity of a virus, the capabilities of cryptography are not used in the payload. The One-half virus was amongst the first viruses known to have encrypted affected files. === Tro_Ransom.A virus === An example of a virus that informs the owner of the infected machine to pay a ransom is the virus nicknamed Tro_Ransom.A. This virus asks the owner of the infected machine to send $10.99 to a given account through Western Union. Virus.Win32.Gpcode.ag is a classic cryptovirus. This virus partially uses a version of 660-bit RSA and encrypts files with many different extensions. It instructs the owner of the machine to email a given mail ID if the owner desires the decryptor. If contacted by email, the user will be asked to pay a certain amount as ransom in return for the decryptor. === CAPI === It has been demonstrated that using just 8 different calls to Microsoft's Cryptographic API (CAPI), a cryptovirus can satisfy all its encryption needs. == Other uses of cryptography-enabled malware == Apart from cryptoviral extortion, there are other potential uses of cryptoviruses, such as deniable password snatching, cryptocounters, private information retrieval, and in secure communication between different instances of a distributed cryptovirus.

    Read more →
  • Payment tokenization

    Payment tokenization

    Payment tokenization is a data security process that replaces sensitive payment information, such as credit card numbers, with a unique identifier or "token." This token can be used in place of actual data during transactions but has no exploitable value if breached, thereby reducing the risk of data theft and fraud. == Overview == Payment tokenization is generally categorized into two types: security tokens and payment tokens. Security tokens, also known as post-authorization tokens, are used to replace sensitive information like Primary Account Numbers (PANs), such as credit card numbers either after a payment is authorized or for storing data securely (data-at-rest), such as in merchant databases. These models have been in use since the mid-2000s, following the introduction of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard in 2004, which established standards for safeguarding cardholder data. The Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council's 2011 Tokenization Guidelines and the proposed American National Standards Institute X9 standards emphasize using tokens primarily to secure sensitive information, not as replacements for payment credentials processed over financial networks. Traditionally, merchants stored PANs to support backend operations such as settlements, reconciliations, chargebacks, loyalty programs, and customer service. However, with the adoption of security tokenization, merchants can substitute PANs with tokens in their systems. This not only reduces their exposure to fraud but also helps minimize the scope and cost of PCI-DSS compliance, offering a more secure and efficient way to manage cardholder data. == Applications == Payment tokenization is widely used by mobile wallets such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay use tokenization to safely store card data on devices. E-commerce platforms rely on it to securely retain customer payment details for recurring purchases. At the physical point of sale, EMV-enabled systems use tokenization to protect card information during in-store transactions. Also, subscription billing services implement tokenization to manage and safeguard payment credentials for ongoing charges.

    Read more →