AI For Kids Dubai

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

Quantification (machine learning)

In machine learning, quantification (variously called learning to quantify, or supervised prevalence estimation, or class prior estimation) is the task of using supervised learning in order to train models (quantifiers) that estimate the relative frequencies (also known as prevalence values) of the classes of interest in a sample of unlabelled data items. For instance, in a sample of 100,000 unlabelled tweets known to express opinions about a certain political candidate, a quantifier may be used to estimate the percentage of these tweets which belong to class `Positive' (i.e., which manifest a positive stance towards this candidate), and to do the same for classes `Neutral' and `Negative'. Quantification may also be viewed as the task of training predictors that estimate a (discrete) probability distribution, i.e., that generate a predicted distribution that approximates the unknown true distribution of the items across the classes of interest. Quantification is different from classification, since the goal of classification is to predict the class labels of individual data items, while the goal of quantification it to predict the class prevalence values of sets of data items. Quantification is also different from regression, since in regression the training data items have real-valued labels, while in quantification the training data items have class labels. It has been shown in multiple research works that performing quantification by classifying all unlabelled instances and then counting the instances that have been attributed to each class (the 'classify and count' method) usually leads to suboptimal quantification accuracy. This suboptimality may be seen as a direct consequence of 'Vapnik's principle', which states: If you possess a restricted amount of information for solving some problem, try to solve the problem directly and never solve a more general problem as an intermediate step. It is possible that the available information is sufficient for a direct solution but is insufficient for solving a more general intermediate problem. In our case, the problem to be solved directly is quantification, while the more general intermediate problem is classification. As a result of the suboptimality of the 'classify and count' method, quantification has evolved as a task in its own right, different (in goals, methods, techniques, and evaluation measures) from classification. == Quantification tasks == === Quantification tasks according to the set of classes === The main variants of quantification, according to the characteristics of the set of classes used, are: Binary quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are only n = 2 {\displaystyle n=2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Single-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n > 2 {\displaystyle n>2} classes and each data item belongs to exactly one of them; Multi-label multiclass quantification, corresponding to the case in which there are n ≥ 2 {\displaystyle n\geq 2} classes and each data item can belong to zero, one, or several classes at the same time; Ordinal quantification, corresponding to the single-label multiclass case in which a total order is defined on the set of classes. Regression quantification, a task which stands to 'standard' quantification as regression stands to classification. Strictly speaking, this task is not a quantification task as defined above (since the individual items do not have class labels but are labelled by real values), but has enough commonalities with other quantification tasks to be considered one of them. Most known quantification methods address the binary case or the single-label multiclass case, and only few of them address the multi-label, ordinal, and regression cases. Binary-only methods include the Mixture Model (MM) method, the HDy method, SVM(KLD), and SVM(Q). Methods that can deal with both the binary case and the single-label multiclass case include probabilistic classify and count (PCC), adjusted classify and count (ACC), probabilistic adjusted classify and count (PACC), the Saerens-Latinne-Decaestecker EM-based method (SLD), and KDEy. Methods for multi-label quantification include regression-based quantification (RQ) and label powerset-based quantification (LPQ). Methods for the ordinal case include ordinal versions of the above-mentioned ACC, PACC, and SLD methods, and ordinal versions of the above-mentioned HDy method. Methods for the regression case include Regress and splice and Adjusted regress and sum. === Quantification tasks according to the type of data === Several subtasks of quantification may be identified according to the type of data involved. Example such tasks are: Quantification of networked data. This task consists of performing quantification when the datapoints are members of a relation, i.e., are interlinked. As such, this task is a strict relative of collective classification. Quantification over time. This task consists of performing quantification on sets that become available in a temporal sequence, i.e., as a data stream, and finds application in contexts in which class prevalence values must be monitored over time. == Evaluation measures for quantification == Several evaluation measures can be used for evaluating the error of a quantification method. Since quantification consists of generating a predicted probability distribution that estimates a true probability distribution, these evaluation measures are ones that compare two probability distributions. Most evaluation measures for quantification belong to the class of divergences. Evaluation measures for binary quantification, single-label multiclass quantification, and multi-label quantification, are Absolute Error Squared Error Relative Absolute Error Kullback–Leibler divergence Pearson Divergence Evaluation measures for ordinal quantification are Normalized Match Distance (a particular case of the Earth Mover's Distance) Root Normalized Order-Aware Distance == Applications == Quantification is of special interest in fields such as the social sciences, epidemiology, market research, allocating resources, and ecological modelling, since these fields are inherently concerned with aggregate data. However, quantification is also useful as a building block for solving other downstream tasks, such as improving the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data, measuring classifier bias and ranker bias, and estimating the accuracy of classifiers on out-of-distribution data. == Resources == LQ 2021: the 1st International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2022: the 2nd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2023: the 3rd International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2024: the 4th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LQ 2025: the 5th International Workshop on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2022: the 1st Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify LeQua 2024: the 2nd Data Challenge on Learning to Quantify QuaPy: An open-source Python-based software library for quantification QuantificationLib: A Python library for quantification and prevalence estimation
Read more →
Symmetric Boolean function

In mathematics, a symmetric Boolean function is a Boolean function whose value does not depend on the order of its input bits, i.e., it depends only on the number of ones (or zeros) in the input. For this reason they are also known as Boolean counting functions. There are 2n+1 symmetric n-ary Boolean functions. Instead of the truth table, traditionally used to represent Boolean functions, one may use a more compact representation for an n-variable symmetric Boolean function: the (n + 1)-vector, whose i-th entry (i = 0, ..., n) is the value of the function on an input vector with i ones. Mathematically, the symmetric Boolean functions correspond one-to-one with the functions that map n+1 elements to two elements, f : { 0 , 1 , . . . , n } → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1,...,n\}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} . Symmetric Boolean functions are used to classify Boolean satisfiability problems. == Special cases == A number of special cases are recognized: Majority function: their value is 1 on input vectors with more than n/2 ones Threshold functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with k or more ones for a fixed k All-equal and not-all-equal function: their values is 1 when the inputs do (not) all have the same value Exact-count functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with k ones for a fixed k One-hot or 1-in-n function: their value is 1 on input vectors with exactly one one One-cold function: their value is 1 on input vectors with exactly one zero Congruence functions: their value is 1 on input vectors with the number of ones congruent to k mod m for fixed k, m Parity function: their value is 1 if the input vector has odd number of ones The n-ary versions of AND, OR, XOR, NAND, NOR and XNOR are also symmetric Boolean functions. == Properties == In the following, f k {\displaystyle f_{k}} denotes the value of the function f : { 0 , 1 } n → { 0 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow \{0,1\}} when applied to an input vector of weight k {\displaystyle k} . === Weight === The weight of the function can be calculated from its value vector: | f | = ∑ k = 0 n ( n k ) f k {\displaystyle |f|=\sum _{k=0}^{n}{\binom {n}{k}}f_{k}} === Algebraic normal form === The algebraic normal form either contains all monomials of certain order m {\displaystyle m} , or none of them; i.e. the Möbius transform f ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}} of the function is also a symmetric function. It can thus also be described by a simple (n+1) bit vector, the ANF vector f ^ m {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{m}} . The ANF and value vectors are related by a Möbius relation: f ^ m = ⨁ k 2 ⊆ m 2 f k {\displaystyle {\hat {f}}_{m}=\bigoplus _{k_{2}\subseteq m_{2}}f_{k}} where k 2 ⊆ m 2 {\displaystyle k_{2}\subseteq m_{2}} denotes all the weights k whose base-2 representation is covered by the base-2 representation of m (a consequence of Lucas’ theorem). Effectively, an n-variable symmetric Boolean function corresponds to a log(n)-variable ordinary Boolean function acting on the base-2 representation of the input weight. For example, for three-variable functions: f ^ 0 = f 0 f ^ 1 = f 0 ⊕ f 1 f ^ 2 = f 0 ⊕ f 2 f ^ 3 = f 0 ⊕ f 1 ⊕ f 2 ⊕ f 3 {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lcl}{\hat {f}}_{0}&=&f_{0}\\{\hat {f}}_{1}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{1}\\{\hat {f}}_{2}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{2}\\{\hat {f}}_{3}&=&f_{0}\oplus f_{1}\oplus f_{2}\oplus f_{3}\end{array}}} So the three variable majority function with value vector (0, 0, 1, 1) has ANF vector (0, 0, 1, 0), i.e.: Maj ( x , y , z ) = x y ⊕ x z ⊕ y z {\displaystyle {\text{Maj}}(x,y,z)=xy\oplus xz\oplus yz} === Unit hypercube polynomial === The coefficients of the real polynomial agreeing with the function on { 0 , 1 } n {\displaystyle \{0,1\}^{n}} are given by: f m ∗ = ∑ k = 0 m ( − 1 ) | k | + | m | ( m k ) f k {\displaystyle f_{m}^{}=\sum _{k=0}^{m}(-1)^{|k|+|m|}{\binom {m}{k}}f_{k}} For example, the three variable majority function polynomial has coefficients (0, 0, 1, -2): Maj ( x , y , z ) = ( x y + x z + y z ) − 2 ( x y z ) {\displaystyle {\text{Maj}}(x,y,z)=(xy+xz+yz)-2(xyz)} == Examples ==
Read more →
Data custodian

In data governance groups, responsibilities for data management are increasingly divided between the business process owners and information technology (IT) departments. Two functional titles commonly used for these roles are data steward and data custodian. Data Stewards are commonly responsible for data content, context, and associated business rules. Data custodians are responsible for the safe custody, transport, storage of the data and implementation of business rules. Simply put, Data Stewards are responsible for what is stored in a data field, while data custodians are responsible for the technical environment and database structure. Common job titles for data custodians are database administrator (DBA), data modeler, ETL developer and data engineer. == Data custodian responsibilities == A data custodian ensures: Access to the data is authorized and controlled Data stewards are identified for each data set Technical processes sustain data integrity Processes exist for data quality issue resolution in partnership with data stewards Technical controls safeguard data Data added to data sets are consistent with the common data model Versions of master data are maintained along with the history of changes Change management practices are applied in maintenance of the database Data content and changes can be audited
Read more →
Hybrid cryptosystem

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

Pocket, formerly known as Read It Later, was a social bookmarking service for storing, sharing and discovering web bookmarks, first released in 2007. Mozilla, the developer of Pocket, announced in May 2025 that it was discontinuing the service and would shut it down in July of that year. == History == Pocket was introduced in August 2007 as a Mozilla Firefox browser extension named Read It Later by Nathan (Nate) Weiner. Once his product was used by millions of people, he moved his office to Silicon Valley and four other people joined the Read It Later team. Weiner's intention was for the application to be like a TiVo directory for web content and to give users access to that content on any device. Read It Later obtained venture capital investments of US$2.5 million in 2011 and $5.0 million in 2012. The 2011 funding came from Foundation Capital, Baseline Ventures, Google Ventures, Founder Collective and unnamed angel investors. The company rejected an acquisition offer by Evernote after showing concerns that Evernote intended to shut down the Read It Later service and amalgamate its functionality into Evernote's main service. Initially, the Read It Later app was available in a free version and a paid version that included additional features. After the rebranding to Pocket, all paid features were made available in a free and advertisement-free app. In May 2014, a paid subscription service called Pocket Premium was introduced, adding server-side storage of articles and more powerful search tools. In June 2015, Pocket was included in Firefox, via a toolbar button and link to a user's Pocket list in the bookmark's menu. The integration was controversial, as users displayed concerns for the direct integration of a proprietary service into an open source application, and that it could not be completely disabled without editing advanced settings, unlike other third-party extensions. A Mozilla spokesperson stated that the feature was meant to leverage the service's popularity among Firefox users and clarified that all code related to the integration was open source. The spokesperson added that "[Mozilla had] gotten lots of positive feedback about the integration from users". On February 27, 2017, Pocket announced that it had been acquired by Mozilla Corporation, the commercial arm of Firefox's non-profit development group. Mozilla staff stated that Pocket would continue to operate as an independent subsidiary but that it would be leveraged as part of an ongoing "Context Graph" project. There were plans to open-source the server-side code of Pocket, though only parts of the project had been open-sourced as of 2024. On May 22, 2025, Mozilla announced that it would shut down Pocket on July 8, 2025. Exports of user data would be available until October 8, 2025, when accounts would be deleted. The email newsletter Pocket Hits was rebranded as Ten Tabs on June 12 as part of the closure, with it being changed to release only on weekdays. == Functions == The application allows the user to save an article or web page to remote servers for later reading. The article is sent to the user's Pocket list (synced to all of their devices) for offline reading. Pocket makes the article more readable by removing clutter and enabling the user to add tags and adjust text settings. == User base == The application had 17 million users and 1 billion saves, as of September 2015. Pocket was listed among Time magazine's 50 Best Android Applications for 2013. == Reception == Kent German of CNET said that "Read It Later is oh so incredibly useful for saving all the articles and news stories I find while commuting or waiting in line." Erez Zukerman of PC World said that supporting the developer is enough reason to buy what he deemed a "handy app". Bill Barol of Forbes said that although Read It Later works less well than Instapaper, "it makes my beloved Instapaper look and feel a little stodgy." In 2015, Pocket was awarded a Material Design Award for Adaptive Layout by Google for their Android application.
Read more →
Social news website

A social news website is a website that features user-posted stories. Such stories are ranked based on popularity, as voted on by other users of the site or by website administrators. Users typically comment online on the news posts and these comments may also be ranked in popularity. Since their emergence with the birth of Web 2.0, social news sites have been used to link many types of information, including news, humor, support, and discussion. All such websites allow the users to submit content and each site differs in how the content is moderated. On the Slashdot and Fark websites, administrators decide which articles are selected for the front page. On Reddit and Digg, the articles that get the most votes from the community of users will make it to the front page. Many social news websites also feature an online comment system, where users discuss the issues raised in an article. Some of these sites have also applied their voting system to the comments, so that the most popular comments are displayed first. Some social news websites also have a social networking service, in that users can set up a user profile and follow other users' online activity on the website. Like many other Web 2.0 tools, social news websites use the collective intelligence of all of the users to operate. Social news websites also "impl[y] the technical, economic, legal, and human enhancement of a universally distributed intelligence that will unleash a positive dynamic of recognition and skills mobilization". Social news websites help participants to share a collective vision and awareness of how their actions are integrated with those of other individuals. Social news websites provide a new and innovative way to participate in a community that is constantly being flooded with new information. These social news websites "include opportunities for peer-to-peer learning, a changed attitude toward intellectual property, the diversification of cultural expression, the development of skills valued in the modern workplace, and a more empowered conception of citizenship". These websites can help to shape and reshape democratic opinions and perspectives. Social news sites may mitigate the gatekeeping of mainstream news sources and allow the public to decide what counts as "news", which may facilitate a more participatory culture. Social news sites may also support democratic participation by allowing users from across geographic and national boundaries to access the same information, respond to fellow users' views and beliefs, and create a virtual sphere for users to contribute within. == Websites == === Active === ==== Fark ==== Fark, which started in 1997, features news on any topic. On Fark, users can submit articles to the administrators of the site. Each day, these administrators pick out 50 articles to display on the front page. ==== Slashdot ==== Slashdot, started in 1997, was one of the first social news websites. It focuses mainly on science and technology-related news. Users can submit stories and the editors pick out the best stories each day for the front page. Users can then post comments on the stories. The influx of web traffic that resulted from Slashdot linking to external websites led to the effect being called the Slashdot effect ==== Digg ==== Digg, started in December 2004, introduced the voting system. This system allows users to "digg" or "bury" articles. "Digging" is the equivalent of voting positively, so that popular articles are displayed first. "Burying" does not lower an article's score. However, if an article is buried enough times, it will be automatically deleted from the site. Digg offers a social networking service, as members can follow other members and build personal profiles with information about their interests. ==== Reddit ==== Reddit, started in June 2005, is a social news website where users can submit articles and comments and vote on these submissions. The submissions are organized into categories called "subreddits". Unlike Digg, with Reddit, users can directly affect an article's score. An "upvote" will increase the score and a "downvote" will decrease it. Articles with the highest scores are displayed on the front page. There is also a page for "controversial" articles, that have an almost equal number of upvotes and downvotes. Free speech debates have arisen due to the shutting down of obscene or potentially illegal "subreddits" (including /r/jailbait, a collection of sexually suggestive underage pictures.) Reddit introduced a system of user-created communities called "subreddits", which are essentially categories for a specific type of news. Comments on the featured posts are shown in a hierarchical fashion also based on votes. Users have the ability to earn "karma" for their participation and time on the website. ==== Hacker News ==== Hacker News, started in February 2007, is a social news site focusing on computer science and entrepreneurship, created by Paul Graham and run by his startup incubator, Y Combinator. === Defunct === ==== Newsvine ==== Newsvine, started in March 2006, was a social news website mostly focused on politics, both international and domestic. The Newsvine home page allowed users to customize "seeds" and story feeds. Users received articles via "The Wire" from sources including The Associated Press or The Huffington Post, and from "The Vine" a stream of content from other Newsvine users. The "Top of the Vine" displayed the most voted and commented on articles of the day, week, month, or year. Additionally, Newsvine allowed members to create their own "Customizable Column", which could highlight a user's content posted, recent comments, and information about the specific Newsvine member. ==== feedalizr ==== feedalizr was a cross-platform, desktop social media aggregator built using Adobe Integrated Runtime that consolidates the updates from social media and social networking websites. Users can then use this application to update those sites from their desktop and view a consolidated stream of information. ==== Voat ==== Voat, launched in April 2014 and discontinued in December of 2020, was also a social news website and is very similar to Reddit visually and functionally. The site's userbase included a large number of alt right users, many of whom migrated to Voat after being banned on Reddit. ==== Prismatic ==== Prismatic combined machine learning, user experience design, and interaction design to create a new way to discover, consume, and share media. Prismatic software used social network aggregation and machine learning algorithms to filter the content that aligns with the interests of a specific user. Prismatic integrated with Facebook, Twitter, and Pocket to gather information about user's interests and suggest the most relevant stories to read. ==== Artifact ==== Artifact was an iOS and Android app that used machine learning to personalize news recommendations to readers, and also had social features such as liking articles, commenting, and reputation scores for users.
Read more →
Initialization vector

In cryptography, an initialization vector (IV) or starting variable is an input to a cryptographic primitive being used to provide the initial state. The IV is typically required to be random or pseudorandom, but sometimes an IV only needs to be unpredictable or unique. Randomization is crucial for some encryption schemes to achieve semantic security, a property whereby repeated usage of the scheme under the same key does not allow an attacker to infer relationships between (potentially similar) segments of the encrypted message. For block ciphers, the use of an IV is described by the modes of operation. Some cryptographic primitives require the IV only to be non-repeating, and the required randomness is derived internally. In this case, the IV is commonly called a nonce (a number used only once), and the primitives (e.g. CBC) are considered stateful rather than randomized. This is because an IV need not be explicitly forwarded to a recipient but may be derived from a common state updated at both sender and receiver side. (In practice, a short nonce is still transmitted along with the message to consider message loss.) An example of stateful encryption schemes is the counter mode of operation, which has a sequence number for a nonce. The IV size depends on the cryptographic primitive used; for block ciphers it is generally the cipher's block-size. In encryption schemes, the unpredictable part of the IV has at best the same size as the key to compensate for time/memory/data tradeoff attacks. When the IV is chosen at random, the probability of collisions due to the birthday problem must be taken into account. Traditional stream ciphers such as RC4 do not support an explicit IV as input, and a custom solution for incorporating an IV into the cipher's key or internal state is needed. Some designs realized in practice are known to be insecure; the WEP protocol is a notable example, and is prone to related-IV attacks. == Motivation == A block cipher is one of the most basic primitives in cryptography, and frequently used for data encryption. However, by itself, it can only be used to encode a data block of a predefined size, called the block size. For example, a single invocation of the AES algorithm transforms a 128-bit plaintext block into a ciphertext block of 128 bits in size. The key, which is given as one input to the cipher, defines the mapping between plaintext and ciphertext. If data of arbitrary length is to be encrypted, a simple strategy is to split the data into blocks each matching the cipher's block size, and encrypt each block separately using the same key. This method is not secure as equal plaintext blocks get transformed into equal ciphertexts, and a third party observing the encrypted data may easily determine its content even when not knowing the encryption key. To hide patterns in encrypted data while avoiding the re-issuing of a new key after each block cipher invocation, a method is needed to randomize the input data. In 1980, the NIST published a national standard document designated Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) PUB 81, which specified four so-called block cipher modes of operation, each describing a different solution for encrypting a set of input blocks. The first mode implements the simple strategy described above, and was specified as the electronic codebook (ECB) mode. In contrast, each of the other modes describe a process where ciphertext from one block encryption step gets intermixed with the data from the next encryption step. To initiate this process, an additional input value is required to be mixed with the first block, and which is referred to as an initialization vector. For example, the cipher-block chaining (CBC) mode requires an unpredictable value, of size equal to the cipher's block size, as additional input. This unpredictable value is added to the first plaintext block before subsequent encryption. In turn, the ciphertext produced in the first encryption step is added to the second plaintext block, and so on. The ultimate goal for encryption schemes is to provide semantic security: by this property, it is practically impossible for an attacker to draw any knowledge from observed ciphertext. It can be shown that each of the three additional modes specified by the NIST are semantically secure under so-called chosen-plaintext attacks. == Properties == Properties of an IV depend on the cryptographic scheme used. A basic requirement is uniqueness, which means that no IV may be reused under the same key. For block ciphers, repeated IV values devolve the encryption scheme into electronic codebook mode: equal IV and equal plaintext result in equal ciphertext. In stream cipher encryption uniqueness is crucially important as plaintext may be trivially recovered otherwise. Example: Stream ciphers encrypt plaintext P to ciphertext C by deriving a key stream K from a given key and IV and computing C as C = P xor K. Assume that an attacker has observed two messages C1 and C2 both encrypted with the same key and IV. Then knowledge of either P1 or P2 reveals the other plaintext since C1 xor C2 = (P1 xor K) xor (P2 xor K) = P1 xor P2. Many schemes require the IV to be unpredictable by an adversary. This is effected by selecting the IV at random or pseudo-randomly. In such schemes, the chance of a duplicate IV is negligible, but the effect of the birthday problem must be considered. As for the uniqueness requirement, a predictable IV may allow recovery of (partial) plaintext. Example: Consider a scenario where a legitimate party called Alice encrypts messages using the cipher-block chaining mode. Consider further that there is an adversary called Eve that can observe these encryptions and is able to forward plaintext messages to Alice for encryption (in other words, Eve is capable of a chosen-plaintext attack). Now assume that Alice has sent a message consisting of an initialization vector IV1 and starting with a ciphertext block CAlice. Let further PAlice denote the first plaintext block of Alice's message, let E denote encryption, and let PEve be Eve's guess for the first plaintext block. Now, if Eve can determine the initialization vector IV2 of the next message she will be able to test her guess by forwarding a plaintext message to Alice starting with (IV2 xor IV1 xor PEve); if her guess was correct this plaintext block will get encrypted to CAlice by Alice. This is because of the following simple observation: CAlice = E(IV1 xor PAlice) = E(IV2 xor (IV2 xor IV1 xor PAlice)). Depending on whether the IV for a cryptographic scheme must be random or only unique the scheme is either called randomized or stateful. While randomized schemes always require the IV chosen by a sender to be forwarded to receivers, stateful schemes allow sender and receiver to share a common IV state, which is updated in a predefined way at both sides. == Block ciphers == Block cipher processing of data is usually described as a mode of operation. Modes are primarily defined for encryption as well as authentication, though newer designs exist that combine both security solutions in so-called authenticated encryption modes. While encryption and authenticated encryption modes usually take an IV matching the cipher's block size, authentication modes are commonly realized as deterministic algorithms, and the IV is set to zero or some other fixed value. == Stream ciphers == In stream ciphers, IVs are loaded into the keyed internal secret state of the cipher, after which a number of cipher rounds are executed prior to releasing the first bit of output. For performance reasons, designers of stream ciphers try to keep that number of rounds as small as possible, but because determining the minimal secure number of rounds for stream ciphers is not a trivial task, and considering other issues such as entropy loss, unique to each cipher construction, related-IVs and other IV-related attacks are a known security issue for stream ciphers, which makes IV loading in stream ciphers a serious concern and a subject of ongoing research. == WEP IV == The 802.11 encryption algorithm called WEP (short for Wired Equivalent Privacy) used a short, 24-bit IV, leading to reused IVs with the same key, which led to it being easily cracked. Packet injection allowed for WEP to be cracked in times as short as several seconds. This ultimately led to the deprecation of WEP. == SSL 2.0 IV == In cipher-block chaining mode (CBC mode), the IV need not be secret, but must be unpredictable (In particular, for any given plaintext, it must not be possible to predict the IV that will be associated to the plaintext in advance of the generation of the IV.) at encryption time. Additionally for the output feedback mode (OFB mode), the IV must be unique. In particular, the (previously) common practice of re-using the last ciphertext block of a message as the IV for the next message is insecure (for example, this method was used by SSL 2.0). If an attacker knows
Read more →
Chaffing and winnowing

Chaffing and winnowing is a cryptographic technique to achieve confidentiality without using encryption when sending data over an insecure channel. The name is derived from agriculture: after grain has been harvested and threshed, it remains mixed together with inedible fibrous chaff. The chaff and grain are then separated by winnowing, and the chaff is discarded. The cryptographic technique was conceived by Ron Rivest and published in an on-line article on 18 March 1998. Although it bears similarities to both traditional encryption and steganography, it cannot be classified under either category. This technique allows the sender to deny responsibility for encrypting their message. When using chaffing and winnowing, the sender transmits the message unencrypted, in clear text. Although the sender and the receiver share a secret key, they use it only for authentication. However, a third party can make their communication confidential by simultaneously sending specially crafted messages through the same channel. == How it works == The sender (Alice) wants to send a message to the receiver (Bob). In the simplest setup, Alice enumerates the symbols in her message and sends out each in a separate packet. If the symbols are complex enough, such as natural-language text, an attacker may be able to distinguish the real symbols from poorly faked chaff symbols, posing a similar problem as steganography in needing to generate highly realistic fakes; to avoid this, the symbols can be reduced to just single 0/1 bits, and realistic fakes can then be simply randomly generated 50:50 and are indistinguishable from real symbols. In general, the method requires each symbol to arrive in-order and to be authenticated by the receiver. When implemented over networks that may change the order of packets, the sender places the symbol's serial number in the packet, the symbol itself (both unencrypted), and a message authentication code (MAC). Many MACs use a secret key Alice shares with Bob, but it is sufficient that the receiver has a method to authenticate the packets. Rivest notes an interesting property of chaffing-and-winnowing is that third parties (such as an ISP) can opportunistically add it to communications without needing permission or coordination with the sender/recipient. A third-party (Charles) who transmits Alice's packets to Bob, interleaves the packets with corresponding bogus packets (called "chaff") with corresponding serial numbers, arbitrary symbols, and a random number in place of the MAC. Charles does not need to know the key to do that (real MACs are large enough that it is extremely unlikely to generate a valid one by chance, unlike in the example). Bob uses the MAC to find the authentic messages and drops the "chaff" messages. This process is called "winnowing". An eavesdropper located between Alice and Charles can easily read Alice's message. But an eavesdropper between Charles and Bob would have to tell which packets are bogus and which are real (i.e. to winnow, or "separate the wheat from the chaff"). That is infeasible if the MAC used is secure and Charles does not leak any information on packet authenticity (e.g. via timing). If a fourth party joins the example (named Darth) who wants to send counterfeit messages to impersonate Alice, it would require Alice to disclose her secret key. If Darth cannot force Alice to disclose an authentication key (the knowledge of which would enable him to forge messages from Alice), then her messages will remain confidential. Charles, on the other hand, is no target of Darth's at all, since Charles does not even possess any secret keys that could be disclosed. == Variations == The simple variant of the chaffing and winnowing technique described above adds many bits of overhead per bit of original message. To make the transmission more efficient, Alice can process her message with an all-or-nothing transform and then send it out in much larger chunks. The chaff packets will have to be modified accordingly. Because the original message can be reconstructed only by knowing all of its chunks, Charles needs to send only enough chaff packets to make finding the correct combination of packets computationally infeasible. Chaffing and winnowing lends itself especially well to use in packet-switched network environments such as the Internet, where each message (whose payload is typically small) is sent in a separate network packet. In another variant of the technique, Charles carefully interleaves packets coming from multiple senders. That eliminates the need for Charles to generate and inject bogus packets in the communication. However, the text of Alice's message cannot be well protected from other parties who are communicating via Charles at the same time. This variant also helps protect against information leakage and traffic analysis. == Implications for law enforcement == Ron Rivest suggests that laws related to cryptography, including export controls, would not apply to chaffing and winnowing because it does not employ any encryption at all. The power to authenticate is in many cases the power to control, and handing all authentication power to the government is beyond all reason The author of the paper proposes that the security implications of handing everyone's authentication keys to the government for law-enforcement purposes would be far too risky, since possession of the key would enable someone to masquerade and communicate as another entity, such as an airline controller. Furthermore, Ron Rivest contemplates the possibility of rogue law enforcement officials framing up innocent parties by introducing the chaff into their communications, concluding that drafting a law restricting chaffing and winnowing would be far too difficult. == Trivia == The term winnowing was suggested by Ronald Rivest's father. Before the publication of Rivest's paper in 1998 other people brought to his attention a 1965 novel, Rex Stout's The Doorbell Rang, which describes the same concept and was thus included in the paper's references.
Read more →
Halloween Problem

In computing, the Halloween Problem refers to a phenomenon in databases in which an update operation causes a change in the physical location of a row, potentially allowing the row to be visited again later in the same update operation. This could even cause an infinite loop in some cases where updates continually place the updated record ahead of the scan performing the update operation. The potential for this database error was first discovered by Don Chamberlin, Pat Selinger, and Morton Astrahan in the mid-1970s, on Halloween day, while working on query optimization. They wrote a SQL query supposed to give a ten percent raise to every employee who earned less than $25,000. This query would run successfully, with no errors, but when finished all the employees in the database earned at least $25,000, because it kept giving them a raise until they reached that level. The expectation was that the query would iterate over each of the employee records with a salary less than $25,000 precisely once. In fact, because even updated records were visible to the query execution engine and so continued to match the query's criteria, salary records were matching multiple times and each time being given a 10% raise until they were all greater than $25,000. Contrary to what some believe, the name is not descriptive of the nature of the problem but rather was given due to the day it was discovered on. As recounted by Don Chamberlin: Pat and Morton discovered this problem on Halloween... I remember they came into my office and said, "Chamberlin, look at this. We have to make sure that when the optimizer is making a plan for processing an update, it doesn't use an index that is based on the field that is being updated. How are we going to do that?" It happened to be on a Friday, and we said, "Listen, we are not going to be able to solve this problem this afternoon. Let's just give it a name. We'll call it the Halloween Problem and we'll work on it next week." And it turns out it has been called that ever since.
Read more →
SIGINT Activity Designator

A SIGINT Activity Designator (or SIGAD) identifies a signals intelligence (SIGINT) line of collection activity associated with a signals collection station, such as a base or a ship. For example, the SIGAD for Menwith Hill in the UK is USD1000. SIGADs are used by the signals intelligence agencies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States (the Five Eyes). There are several thousand SIGADs including the substation SIGADs denoted with a trailing alpha character. Several dozen of these are significant. The leaked Boundless Informant reporting screenshot showed that it summarized 504 active SIGADs during a 30-day period in March 2013. == General format == A SIGAD consists of five to eight case insensitive alphanumeric characters. It takes the general form of an alphanumeric designator normally composed of a two- or three-letter prefix followed by one to three numbers. Often a dash is used to separate the alphabetic and numeric characters in the primary part of the designator, but less frequently a space is used as a separator or the alphabetic and numeric characters are concatenated together. An additional alphabetic character can be added to denote a sub-designator for a subset of the primary unit, such as a detachment. Lastly, a numeric character can be added after the aforementioned alphabetic to provide for a sub-sub-designator. In the examples below an X represents an alphabetic character and an N represents a numeric character that are part of the primary designator. Likewise, an x represents an alphabetic character and an n represents a numeric character that are part of a sub-designator. Here are valid generalized examples of SIGADs: The first two characters show which country operates the particular SIGINT facility, which can be US for the United States, UK for the United Kingdom, CA for Canada, AU for Australia and NZ for New Zealand. A third letter shows what sort of staff runs the station. SIGADs beginning with US without a third letter are used for intercept facilities run by the NSA. == PRISM SIGAD == One prominent SIGAD as of April 2013 is US-984XN, with an unclassified codename of PRISM. It is "the number one source of raw intelligence used for NSA analytic reports" according to National Security Agency sources in a document leaked by Edward Snowden. The President's Daily Brief, an all-source intelligence product, cited SIGAD US-984XN as a source in 1,477 items in 2012. The U.S. government operates the PRISM electronic surveillance collection program through NSA's Special Source Operations, an alliance with trusted telecommunications providers. == SIGADs for spy ships == The declassified SIGAD for the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was USN-855. The USS Liberty incident occurred on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War, when Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters. The USS Pueblo (AGER-2) was a technical research ship, which was boarded and captured by North Korean forces on 23 January 1968, in what is known as the Pueblo incident. The declassified SIGAD for the NSA Direct Support Unit (DSU) from the Naval Security Group (NSG) on the USS Pueblo patrol involved in the incident was USN-467Y. The USS Pueblo, which officially remains a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy, is the only ship of the U.S. Navy currently being held captive. == Vietnam War SIGADs == The following are the Vietnam War-era declassified SIGADs from inside South Vietnam during the period of 1969 to 1975: Some locations have multiple SIGADs due to different types of collection activities and/or collection at different times during the period. The SIGADs beginning with USA were operated by the United States Air Force's United States Air Force Security Service (USAFSS). The SIGADs beginning with USM were operated by the United States Army's Army Security Agency (ASA). Lastly, the SIGADs beginning with USN were operated by the United States Navy's Naval Security Group (NAVSECGRU). All three of these units have been merged into other units or inactivated. The above list consists of the higher-echelon SIGADs. It does not include the numerous miscellaneous and temporary detachments, or direction finding stations belonging to major units or sites unless that detachment or site was the only one stationed in South Vietnam. Many of the "dets" were short-lived, often formed to support ongoing MACV operations or forward deployments of combat operational or maneuver units. These detachments usually were designated by a letter suffix attached to the higher-echelon SIGAD such as "USM-633J," which was a detachment of the 372d Radio Research Company, USM-633, supporting the United States Army's 25th Infantry Division. === Supporting Southeast Asia SIGADs === The following declassified SIGADs were highly relevant to the Vietnam Campaign, but were located in areas outside of South Vietnam in Southeast Asia. Again, detachments are not listed separately. In the case of the USS Maddox, naval Direct Support Units (DSUs) used the SIGAD USN-467 as a generic designator for their missions. Each specific patrol received a letter suffix for its duration. The subsequent mission would receive the next letter in an alphabetic sequence. Thus, SIGAD USN-467N specifically designates the USS Maddox patrol involved with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. == Joint Base SIGADs == In November 2005, the US Congress performed a fifth round of Base Realignment and Closure. This 2005 law also created twelve joint bases by merging adjacent installations belonging to different services in an effort to reduce costs and improve efficiencies. Joint bases with a primarily SIGINT mission have SIGADs that begin with USJ. A joint base would have a primary SIGAD in the general form of USJ-NNN, where NNN are numeric characters. An actual example is not given, since these units are currently active.
Read more →
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 →
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 →
Netomi

Netomi, formerly msg.ai, is an American artificial intelligence company and developer of chatbot technologies. == History == msg.ai was founded in May 2015 by Puneet Mehta. msg.ai worked with Sony Pictures to launch a chat bot on Facebook Messenger for a $100M film, Goosebumps and subsequently joined Y Combinator as a member of the Winter 2016 class. Later that year and in 2017, msg.ai completed two rounds of seed funding, led by Y Combinator and Index Ventures. In 2018, the company changed its name to Netomi. In 2019, the company raised $14.7 million in a Series A funding round also led by Index Ventures. In 2021, the company raised $30 million in a Series B funding round led by WndrCo LLC.
Read more →
Sentiment analysis

Sentiment analysis (also known as opinion mining) is the use of natural language processing, text analysis, computational linguistics, and biometrics to systematically identify, extract, quantify, and study affective states and subjective information. Sentiment analysis is widely applied to voice of the customer materials such as reviews and survey responses, online and social media, and healthcare materials for applications that range from marketing to customer service to clinical medicine. With the rise of deep language models, such as RoBERTa, more difficult data domains can be analyzed, e.g., news texts where authors typically express their opinion/sentiment less explicitly. == Types == A basic task in sentiment analysis is classifying the polarity of a given text at the document, sentence, or feature/aspect level—whether the expressed opinion in a document, a sentence or an entity feature/aspect is positive, negative, or neutral. Advanced, "beyond polarity" sentiment classification looks, for instance, at emotional states such as enjoyment, anger, disgust, sadness, fear, and surprise. Precursors to sentimental analysis include the General Inquirer, which provided hints toward quantifying patterns in text and, separately, psychological research that examined a person's psychological state based on analysis of their verbal behavior. Subsequently, the method described in a patent by Volcani and Fogel, looked specifically at sentiment and identified individual words and phrases in text with respect to different emotional scales. A current system based on their work, called EffectCheck, presents synonyms that can be used to increase or decrease the level of evoked emotion in each scale. Many other subsequent efforts were less sophisticated, using a mere polar view of sentiment, from positive to negative, such as work by Turney, and Pang who applied different methods for detecting the polarity of product reviews and movie reviews respectively. This work is at the document level. One can also classify a document's polarity on a multi-way scale, which was attempted by Pang and Snyder among others: Pang and Lee expanded the basic task of classifying a movie review as either positive or negative to predict star ratings on either a 3- or a 4-star scale, while Snyder performed an in-depth analysis of restaurant reviews, predicting ratings for various aspects of the given restaurant, such as the food and atmosphere (on a five-star scale). First steps to bringing together various approaches—learning, lexical, knowledge-based, etc.—were taken in the 2004 AAAI Spring Symposium where linguists, computer scientists, and other interested researchers first aligned interests and proposed shared tasks and benchmark data sets for the systematic computational research on affect, appeal, subjectivity, and sentiment in text. Even though in most statistical classification methods, the neutral class is ignored under the assumption that neutral texts lie near the boundary of the binary classifier, several researchers suggest that, as in every polarity problem, three categories must be identified. Moreover, it can be proven that specific classifiers such as the Max Entropy and SVMs can benefit from the introduction of a neutral class and improve the overall accuracy of the classification. There are in principle two ways for operating with a neutral class. Either, the algorithm proceeds by first identifying the neutral language, filtering it out and then assessing the rest in terms of positive and negative sentiments, or it builds a three-way classification in one step. This second approach often involves estimating a probability distribution over all categories (e.g. naive Bayes classifiers as implemented by the NLTK). Whether and how to use a neutral class depends on the nature of the data: if the data is clearly clustered into neutral, negative and positive language, it makes sense to filter the neutral language out and focus on the polarity between positive and negative sentiments. If, in contrast, the data are mostly neutral with small deviations towards positive and negative affect, this strategy would make it harder to clearly distinguish between the two poles. A different method for determining sentiment is the use of a scaling system whereby words commonly associated with having a negative, neutral, or positive sentiment are given an associated number on a −10 to +10 scale (most negative up to most positive) or simply from 0 to a positive upper limit such as +4. This makes it possible to adjust the sentiment of a given term relative to its environment (usually on the level of the sentence). When a piece of unstructured text is analyzed using natural language processing, each concept in the specified environment is given a score based on the way sentiment words relate to the concept and its associated score. This allows movement to a more sophisticated understanding of sentiment, because it is now possible to adjust the sentiment value of a concept relative to modifications that may surround it. Words, for example, that intensify, relax or negate the sentiment expressed by the concept can affect its score. Alternatively, texts can be given a positive and negative sentiment strength score if the goal is to determine the sentiment in a text rather than the overall polarity and strength of the text. There are various other types of sentiment analysis, such as aspect-based sentiment analysis, grading sentiment analysis (positive, negative, neutral), multilingual sentiment analysis and detection of emotions. === Subjectivity/objectivity identification === This task is commonly defined as classifying a given text (usually a sentence) into one of two classes: objective or subjective. This problem can sometimes be more difficult than polarity classification. The subjectivity of words and phrases may depend on their context and an objective document may contain subjective sentences (e.g., a news article quoting people's opinions). Moreover, as mentioned by Su, results are largely dependent on the definition of subjectivity used when annotating texts. However, Pang showed that removing objective sentences from a document before classifying its polarity helped improve performance. Subjective and objective identification, emerging subtasks of sentiment analysis to use syntactic, semantic features, and machine learning knowledge to identify if a sentence or document contains facts or opinions. Awareness of recognizing factual and opinions is not recent, having possibly first presented by Carbonell at Yale University in 1979. The term objective refers to the incident carrying factual information. Example of an objective sentence: 'To be elected president of the United States, a candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age.' The term subjective describes the incident contains non-factual information in various forms, such as personal opinions, judgment, and predictions, also known as 'private states'. In the example down below, it reflects a private states 'We Americans'. Moreover, the target entity commented by the opinions can take several forms from tangible product to intangible topic matters stated in Liu (2010). Furthermore, three types of attitudes were observed by Liu (2010), 1) positive opinions, 2) neutral opinions, and 3) negative opinions. Example of a subjective sentence: 'We Americans need to elect a president who is mature and who is able to make wise decisions.' This analysis is a classification problem. Each class's collections of words or phrase indicators are defined for to locate desirable patterns on unannotated text. For subjective expression, a different word list has been created. Lists of subjective indicators in words or phrases have been developed by multiple researchers in the linguist and natural language processing field states in Riloff et al. (2003). A dictionary of extraction rules has to be created for measuring given expressions. Over the years, in subjective detection, the features extraction progression from curating features by hand to automated features learning. At the moment, automated learning methods can further separate into supervised and unsupervised machine learning. Patterns extraction with machine learning process annotated and unannotated text have been explored extensively by academic researchers. However, researchers recognized several challenges in developing fixed sets of rules for expressions respectably. Much of the challenges in rule development stems from the nature of textual information. Six challenges have been recognized by several researchers: 1) metaphorical expressions, 2) discrepancies in writings, 3) context-sensitive, 4) represented words with fewer usages, 5) time-sensitive, and 6) ever-growing volume. Metaphorical expressions. The text contains metaphoric expression may impact on the performance on the extraction. Besides, metaphors take in different forms, which may have been contribu
Read more →
Squeaky Dolphin

Squeaky Dolphin is a program developed by the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), a British intelligence and security organization, to collect and analyze data from social media networks. The program was first revealed to the general public on NBC on 27 January 2014 based on documents previously leaked by Edward Snowden. == Scope of surveillance == According to a document of the GCHQ dated August 2012, the program enables broad, real-time surveillance of the following items: YouTube video views The Like button on Facebook. Facebook has since then encrypted the data. Blogspot/Blogger visits Twitter, which has however encrypted its communications since this presentation was made The program can be supplemented with commercially available analytic software to determine which videos are popular among residents of specific cities. The dashboard software chosen was made by Splunk. The presentation, which was originally shown to an NSA audience and was made public by the NBC, contains a note saying the program was "Not interested in individuals just broad trends!". However, "according to other Snowden documents" obtained by NBC, in 2010, "GCHQ exploited unencrypted data from Twitter to identify specific users around the world and target them with propaganda."
Read more →