AI Generator With No Limits

AI Generator With No Limits — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Scroll (web service)

    Scroll (web service)

    Scroll was a subscription-based web service developed by Scroll Labs Inc., offering ad-free access to websites in exchange for a fee. Scroll was not an ad blocker; instead, it partnered directly with internet publishers who voluntarily removed ads from their sites for Scroll users in exchange for a portion of the subscription fee. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter. In October 2021, Scroll sent out an email announcing its integration into Twitter Blue within 30 days. == Functionality == Scroll enabled users to browse websites that partnered with Scroll without encountering online advertising, in exchange for a subscription fee. Unlike ad blocker, which disable advertisements without compensating the publisher, Scroll sent a browser cookie indicating that the user was a subscriber. The Scroll software integrated into the website detected this cookie and served an ad-free version of the site. In exchange for disabling advertisements, partner websites received a portion of the subscription fee. As of January 2020, Scroll retained 30% of the subscription fee, with the remaining 70% distributed among publisher sites. Payments to sites were made individually by users based on their 'engagement and loyalty,' rather than from a single pool of all subscription revenue. Scroll did not grant subscribers access to partner sites behind a paywall; it only removed ads from the site if the user also paid the publication's subscription fee. == History == Scroll was founded in 2016 by former Chartbeat Chief Executive Tony Haile. Scroll raised US$3 million in its first round of funding in 2016, including investments from The New York Times, Uncork Capital, and Axel Springer SE. By October 2018, Scroll had raised US$10 million in funding. In 2018, Scroll signed its first partner websites, which included The Atlantic, Fusion Media Group, Business Insider, Slate, MSNBC, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Talking Points Memo. In February 2019, Scroll acquired the social media curation app Nuzzel. The same month, Mozilla and Scroll announced a partnership to run a "test pilot" together, but did not go into details. Scroll entered beta testing in 2019 and launched to the general public on January 28, 2020. In March 2020, Mozilla started offering Scroll as part of its "Firefox Better Web" service bundle. In May 2021, Scroll was acquired by Twitter, with the future of Scroll cited as being uncertain. An email to customers announcing the change said, "Later this year, Scroll will become part of a wider Twitter subscription that will expand on and adapt our services and functionality".

    Read more →
  • Data Reference Model

    Data Reference Model

    The Data Reference Model (DRM) is one of the five reference models of the Federal Enterprise Architecture. == Overview == The DRM is a framework whose primary purpose is to enable information sharing and reuse across the United States federal government via the standard description and discovery of common data and the promotion of uniform data management practices. The DRM describes artifacts which can be generated from the data architectures of federal government agencies. The DRM provides a flexible and standards-based approach to accomplish its purpose. The scope of the DRM is broad, as it may be applied within a single agency, within a community of interest, or cross-community of interest. == Data Reference Model topics == === DRM structure === The DRM provides a standard means by which data may be described, categorized, and shared. These are reflected within each of the DRM's three standardization areas: Data Description: Provides a means to uniformly describe data, thereby supporting its discovery and sharing. Data Context: Facilitates discovery of data through an approach to the categorization of data according to taxonomies. Additionally, enables the definition of authoritative data assets within a community of interest. Data Sharing: Supports the access and exchange of data where access consists of ad hoc requests (such as a query of a data asset), and exchange consists of fixed, re-occurring transactions between parties. Enabled by capabilities provided by both the Data Context and Data Description standardization areas. === DRM Version 2 === The Data Reference Model version 2 released in November 2005 is a 114-page document with detailed architectural diagrams and an extensive glossary of terms. The DRM also make many references to ISO standards specifically the ISO/IEC 11179 metadata registry standard. === DRM usage === The DRM is not technically a published technical interoperability standard such as web services, it is an excellent starting point for data architects within federal and state agencies. Any federal or state agencies that are involved with exchanging information with other agencies or that are involved in data warehousing efforts should use this document as a guide.

    Read more →
  • Commit (data management)

    Commit (data management)

    In computer science and data management, a commit is a behavior that marks the end of a transaction and provides Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, and Durability (ACID) in transactions. The submission records are stored in the submission log for recovery and consistency in case of failure. In terms of transactions, the opposite of committing is giving up tentative changes to the transaction, which is rolled back. Due to the rise of distributed computing and the need to ensure data consistency across multiple systems, commit protocols have been evolving since their emergence in the 1970s. The main developments include the Two-Phase Commit (2PC) first proposed by Jim Gray, which is the fundamental core of distributed transaction management. Subsequently, the Three-phase Commit (3PC), Hypothesis Commit (PC), Hypothesis Abort (PA), and Optimistic Commit protocols gradually emerged, solving the problems of blocking and fault recovery. Today, new fields such as e-commerce payment and blockchain technology are emerging, and submission protocols play a significant role in various business areas. By effectively handling transactions, resolving faults and recovering problems, the commit protocol becomes crucial in ensuring the reliability and consistency of data management. == History == The concept of Commit originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when computer technology was rapidly advancing and data management was becoming an important requirement in business and finance. Enterprises have gradually replaced the traditional paper records with computers, which has fully improved the work efficiency. The reliability and consistency of data have become a necessary requirement. Transaction management at this stage is relatively simple, limited to using a single computer for processing. It merely effectively records the changes in data to ensure that the data remains stable after the transaction is completed or terminated. In the late 1970s, as database systems moved from a single calculator operation to multiple distributed collaborations, ensuring data consistency and reliability became a new challenge. In 1978, computer scientist Jim Gray proposed the famous two-phase Commit Protocol (2PC), which became an effective solution for distributed transaction management, successfully managing data synchronization problems between multiple nodes. However, this commit protocol has some potential transaction blocking problems when nodes fail. In the early 1980s, researchers discovered that although the two-step commit protocol was effective at synchronizing data, there could be long waits and even system crashes, with limitations. To improve this problem, people have begun to explore new and effective methods, including enhancing efficiency by reducing message communication during the protocol process. IBM's R database introduced the Assumed Commit and Assumed abort protocols, which contributed significantly to transaction management efficiency. These two protocols have greatly improved the processing efficiency of distributed transactions by reducing communication overhead and have become an important breakthrough in the technology of transaction commit protocols. By the early 1990s, with the increase in business demands and the complexity of transactions, enterprises required higher efficiency in distributed transaction processing. In order to adapt to the needs of different environments, the scientific community has gradually developed various variants of commit protocols to provide more flexible transaction management options for different needs. For example, the three-phase commit protocol promotes the commit of transactions more effectively and reduces the occurrence of blocking problems by adding a pre-commit protocol and a timeout mechanism. In the 21st century, with the popularization of mobile Internet and wireless technology, the commit protocol has been further developed, and researchers have begun to pay attention to how to reduce the blocking in the transaction process to solve the problem of broadband limitation, battery life and network instability in the mobile environment. The proposal of optimistic commit protocol marks the extension of commit technology from traditional database to the emerging mobile data field. This protocol allows transactions to temporarily use unconfirmed data, improving the user experience in cases of poor network conditions. In recent years, with the rise of blockchain and decentralized technologies, submission protocols and consensus mechanisms have gradually merged. These consensus algorithms play a role in tamper-proofing and preventing malicious attacks on node pairs in a decentralized environment. This enables commit to no longer be confined to the scope of traditional database management, but to become the core technology of trust computing and distributed ledgers, further expanding the application field of commit in the digital age. This integration has brought about extensive application impacts. Each transaction can achieve the effect of tracking global submissions through the verification of the consensus mechanism, becoming an important technical foundation for promoting the circulation of digital assets, the operation of cryptocurrencies and decentralized applications. == Commit Protocol Types == In the world of data management, a transaction is a series of database operations, such as bank transfers and order submission. In order to ensure the accuracy, consistency, and security of the data, transactions are usually completed completely, or cancelled completely, leaving no partially completed results. Commit protocol is the method used to coordinate this process. Different protocols are applicable to different submission scenarios and have their own advantages and disadvantages. There are four major commit protocols. === Two-Phase Commit (2PC) === The two-phase commit protocol is the most classic and broadest approach to distributed transactions, which includes both a preparation phase and a commit phase. This commit protocol is designed to allow the database coordinator to determine if all participating nodes agree. The preparation phase is the phase in which the coordination node sends a ready to commit request to all nodes participating in the transaction. The commit phase is a global commit after all participating nodes are ready, and if no agreement is reached, all nodes roll back the transaction and undo all previous operations. Although the two-phase commit protocol is the easiest to operate and widely used, its obvious drawback is that it can cause transactions to be blocked for a long time when nodes fail, resulting in a decline in system performance and making it difficult to terminate or continue immediately. === Three-Phase Commit (3PC) === The three-phase commit protocol is an improved non-blocking protocol based on 2PC, which is divided into three stages: preparation, pre-commit and commit. Firstly, each node sends a "preparation" request. After confirmation, a "pre-submission" stage is added. At this point, each node has completed most of the preparatory work and is waiting for the final confirmation. Finally, in the formal commit stage, after all nodes send the "commit" request, the transaction is completed and committed. Compared with 2PC, it increases the timeout mechanism, avoids the blocking problem caused by single point of failure, and improves the reliability of the system. The three-phase commit protocol significantly optimizes transaction reliability, but adds additional overhead for message transmission and state maintenance. It is more suitable for distributed application scenarios with high transaction sensitivity and no acceptance of long waiting times. === Presumed Commit (PC) and Presumed Abort (PA) === Presumed Commit (PC) is the default that the transaction will be committed successfully and rollback will be notified unless an anomaly is encountered. This commit reduces the message overhead and logging costs of a normal commits. Presumed Abort (PA) is assumed that the default state of the transaction is a rollback and will only be committed when all nodes have explicitly agreed. This commit is applicable to transactions that are not updated frequently or have a low probability of successful commit. The IBM R Distributed Database management System was the first to propose and practice the PC and PA protocols, handling distributed transaction management very efficiently and becoming a classic case in the field of database transaction management. === Optimistic Commit Protocol === With the rise of the Internet, the previous commit protocols are facing new challenges, especially in mobile scenarios with unstable networks. Excessively long transaction waiting times can affect the user experience. The Optimistic Commit Protocol allows a transaction to temporarily access uncommitted data before committing to avoid wait times. This type of commit is suitable f

    Read more →
  • Rassd News Network

    Rassd News Network

    Rassd News Network, also known by its initials of RNN (Arabic:شبكة رصد الاخبارية), is an alternative media network based in Cairo, Egypt. RNN was launched as a Facebook-based news source launched on January 25, 2011. It quickly advanced to become a primary contributor of Egyptian revolution-related news that year. Applying the motto "From the people to the people," the citizen journalists who created RNN have since added a Twitter feed and launched an independent website dedicated to short news stories favored by an online audience. RNN is an organized citizen news network with four working committees; one for editing the news, another to support the correspondents covering Egypt, a third for managing the multimedia feeds and a fourth for staff functions such as development, training and public relations. RNN's Arabic name, Rassd, is an acronym that stands for Rakeb (observe), Sawwer (record) and Dawwen (blog). RNN created a Ustream channel on January 27, 2011, and a YouTube account a month later. The success of RNN and its new social media model is evidenced in its recent local network expansion into Libya, Morocco, Syria, Jerusalem and Turkey. Even so, one media scholar in the US (commenting in 2011) called the accuracy of RNN's reporting "fairly mediocre". RNN has endured closures of their Facebook profile and YouTube account as part of the attacks from private media, attempting to thwart their work and influence their content. == Use of RNN's news by international media == RNN has been a global source of Egyptian revolution-related news since its launch. During the early days of the citizen uprisings across the Middle East, major networks such as BBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya used some of Rassd's news and photos, and followed the network on Twitter. Three days after the online portal went live it was streaming video to MSNBC through its Facebook page. Then on February 5, 2011, Louisville's NBC-affiliate cited RNN, Cairo when it reported that President Hosni Mubarak had stepped down as head of Egypt's ruling party.

    Read more →
  • DeepSeek (chatbot)

    DeepSeek (chatbot)

    DeepSeek is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by the Chinese company DeepSeek. Released on 20 January 2025, DeepSeek-R1 surpassed ChatGPT as the most downloaded freeware app on the iOS App Store in the United States by 27 January. DeepSeek's success against larger and more established rivals has been described as "upending AI" and initiating "a global AI space race". DeepSeek's compliance with Chinese government censorship policies and its data collection practices have also raised concerns over privacy and information control in the model, prompting regulatory scrutiny in multiple countries. However, it has also been praised for its open weights and infrastructure code, energy efficiency and contributions to open-source artificial intelligence. == History == On 10 January 2025, DeepSeek released the chatbot, based on the DeepSeek-R1 model, for iOS and Android. By 27 January, DeepSeek-R1 surpassed ChatGPT as the most-downloaded freeware app on the iOS App Store in the United States, which resulted in an 18% drop in Nvidia's share price. And after a "large-scale" cyberattack on the same day disrupted the proper functioning of its servers, DeepSeek had limited its new user registration to phone numbers from mainland China, email addresses, or Google account logins. On 3 April 2025, in collaboration with researchers at Tsinghua University, DeepSeek published a paper unveiling a new model that combines the techniques generative reward modeling (GRM) and self-principled critique tuning (SPCT). The resulting model is referred to as DeepSeek-GRM. The goal of using these techniques is to foster more effective inference-time scaling within their LLM and chatbot services. Notably, DeepSeek has said that these new models will be released and made open source. On 30 April 2025, Deepseek released its math-focused Artificial Intelligence Model named "DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B". This model is useful for formal theorem proving and mathematical reasoning. On 24 April 2026, DeepSeek released DeepSeek V4 and V4-Pro. == Usage == DeepSeek can answer questions, solve logic problems, and write computer programs on par with other chatbots, according to benchmark tests used by American AI companies. Users can access the chatbot for free through the official DeepSeek website or mobile application, without limitation on the number of queries. DeepSeek only supports user-signup via a global email service, e.g. Gmail, Google or Yahoo. DeepSeek also offers access to the R1 and V3 models that power the chatbot via an API with a usage-based pricing model. This modality is primarily targeted towards developers and businesses. As of February 2025, API usage is priced at approximately $0.28 per million input tokens and $0.42 per million output tokens, making it less expensive than some competing services. Its web version is completely free, with 500 messages per hour cap limit to prevent bots from spamming. == Operation == DeepSeek-V3 uses significantly fewer resources compared to its peers. For example, whereas the world's leading AI companies train their chatbots with supercomputers using as many as 16,000 graphics processing units (GPUs), DeepSeek claims to have needed only about 2,000 GPUs—namely, the H800 series chips from Nvidia. It was trained in around 55 days at a cost of US$5.58 million, which is roughly one-tenth of what tech giant Meta spent building its latest AI technology. == Reactions == DeepSeek's success against larger and more established rivals has been described as "upending AI", constituting "the first shot at what is emerging as a global AI space race", and ushering in "a new era of AI brinkmanship". === Challenge to US AI dominance === DeepSeek's competitive performance at relatively minimal cost has been recognized as potentially challenging the global dominance of American AI models. Various publications and news media, such as The Hill and The Guardian, have described the release of the R1 chatbot as a "Sputnik moment" for American AI, echoing Marc Andreessen's view. OpenAI wrote a letter to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in March 2025, citing issues concerning a possibility that Deepseek could manipulate responses to cause harm. === Chinese perspective === DeepSeek's founder Liang Wenfeng has been compared to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, with CNN calling him the Sam Altman of China and an evangelist for AI. Chinese state media widely praised DeepSeek as a national asset. On 20 January 2025, Chinese Premier Li Qiang invited Wenfeng to his symposium with experts and asked him to provide opinions and suggestions on a draft for comments of the annual 2024 government work report. On 20 February 2025, Wenfeng met with General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping, who encouraged party and state leaders to experiment with DeepSeek. Government officials responded to Xi's approval of the chatbot by reportedly using it to draft legal judgements, propose medical treatment plans, and analyze surveillance videos to search for missing persons. === Performance and success === Leading figures in the American AI sector had mixed reactions to DeepSeek's performance and success. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and OpenAI CEO Altman—whose companies are involved in the United States government-backed "Stargate Project" to develop American AI infrastructure—both called DeepSeek "super impressive". Various companies including Amazon Web Services, Toyota, and Stripe are seeking to use the model in their program. When American President Donald Trump announced The Stargate Project, he referred to DeepSeek as a wake-up call and a positive development. Other leaders in the AI field, however—including Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang, Anthropic cofounder and CEO Dario Amodei, and Elon Musk—have expressed skepticism of the app's performance or of the sustainability of its success. Wang in particularly referred to DeepSeek-V3 as "earth-shattering" and DeepSeek-R1 as "top performing, or roughly on par with the best American models", but speculated that China may possess more AI-powering Nvidia H100 GPUs than thought. === Stock market implications === DeepSeek's optimization of limited resources has highlighted potential limits of United States sanctions on China's AI development, including export restrictions on advanced AI chips to China. The success of the company's AI models consequently "sparked market turmoil" and caused shares in major global technology companies to plunge on 27 January 2025: Nvidia's stock fell by as much as 17–18%, as did the stock of rival Broadcom. Other tech firms also sank, including Microsoft (down 2.5%), Google's owner Alphabet (down over 4%), and Dutch chip equipment maker ASML (down over 7%). A global sell-off of technology stocks on Nasdaq, prompted by the release of the R1 model, led to record losses of about $593 billion in the market capitalizations of AI and computer hardware companies; and by the next day a total of $1 trillion of value was wiped from American stocks. == Concerns == === Distillation === DeepSeek has been reported to sometimes claim that it is ChatGPT. OpenAI said that DeepSeek may have "inappropriately" used outputs from its model as training data in a process called distillation. However, there is currently no method to prove this conclusively. === Censorship === DeepSeek's compliance with Chinese government censorship policies and its data collection practices have raised concerns over information control in the model, prompting regulatory scrutiny in multiple countries. Reports indicate that it applies content moderation in accordance with the government's "public opinion guidance" regulations, limiting responses on topics such as the Tiananmen Square massacre and Taiwan's political status. DeepSeek models that have been uncensored also display a bias towards Chinese government viewpoints on controversial topics such as Xi Jinping's human rights record and Taiwan's political status. However, users who have downloaded the models and hosted them on their own devices and servers have reported successfully removing this censorship. Some sources have observed that the official application programming interface (API) version of R1, which runs from servers located in mainland China, uses censorship mechanisms for topics considered politically sensitive for the government of China. For example, the model may initially generate answers to questions about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, persecution of Uyghurs, comparisons between Xi Jinping and Winnie the Pooh, and human rights in China, but a censorship mechanism deletes the uncensored response afterwards and replaces it with a message such as:"Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else." The post hoc censorship mechanisms and restrictions added on top of the model's output can be removed in the open-source version of the R1 model. If the "core Socialist values" defined by the Chinese Internet regul

    Read more →
  • CryptoParty

    CryptoParty

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

    Read more →
  • Data room

    Data room

    Data rooms are secure spaces used for housing data, usually of a privileged or confidential nature. They can be physical data rooms, virtual data rooms (VDRs), or data centers. They are primarily used for a variety of corporate purposes, including data storage, document exchange, file sharing, financial transactions, and legal proceedings. Today, data rooms are central to workflows in mergers and acquisitions, venture capital, and corporate restructuring, increasingly utilizing artificial intelligence to securely manage and review large datasets. Historically, data rooms were strictly physical locations heavily guarded and monitored. Today, the vast majority of corporate data rooms are hosted virtually on secure cloud platforms, though physical rooms are still occasionally used for highly sensitive government or proprietary intelligence. == Physical Data Rooms == In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), the traditional data room genuinely consists of a physically secured and continually monitored room, normally in the vendor's offices or those of their legal counsel. Bidders and their advisers visit this room in order to inspect and report on various documents, legal contracts, and financial statements made available during the due diligence process. Historically, physical data rooms presented significant logistical challenges. Often, only one bidder at a time was allowed to enter to maintain document integrity and confidentiality. If new documents or new versions of documents were required, they had to be brought in by courier as hardcopies. Teams involved in large due diligence processes typically had to be flown in from many regions or countries and remain available throughout the process. Because these teams comprised a number of experts in different fields—such as legal counsel, forensic accountants, and industry specialists—the overall cost of keeping such groups on call near the physical data room was often extremely high. == Virtual Data Rooms (VDRs) == To address the costs and logistical bottlenecks of physical data rooms, virtual data rooms (VDRs) were developed to provide secure, online dissemination of confidential information. A VDR is essentially a secure cloud repository with strictly controlled access. Access is managed through secure log-ons supplied by the vendor or authority, which can be disabled at any time if a bidder withdraws from a transaction. Because much of the information released during corporate transactions is highly confidential, VDRs utilize digital rights management (DRM) to control information. Restrictions are applied to the viewers' ability to release data to third parties by disabling forwarding, copying, or printing capabilities. Modern VDRs also employ dynamic watermarking and detailed auditing capabilities. Detailed auditing is required for legal reasons so that a precise digital footprint is kept of who has viewed which version of each document, and for how long. Furthermore, modern VDR platforms are typically built to comply with stringent information security standards such as ISO 27001 and SOC 2. Transitioning from sequential physical data rooms to parallel virtual data rooms has been shown to significantly reduce the duration of M&A transactions while allowing sellers to field multiple bidders simultaneously. == Key Applications == Data rooms are commonly used by legal, accounting, investment banking, and private equity firms. Primary applications include: Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): VDRs are central to the sell-side M&A process. After potential buyers sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and review a Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM), they are granted data room access to perform deep financial due diligence, such as Quality of Earnings (QoE) analysis and legal liability assessments. Venture Capital and Startups: Startups use data rooms as a centralized location for key operational data, capitalization tables, and financial projections to streamline due diligence for angel investors and venture capital firms during fundraising rounds. Initial Public Offerings (IPOs): Taking a company public requires intense regulatory scrutiny. Data rooms are used to securely share company histories and financial audits with investment bankers, legal teams, and regulatory bodies. Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency: During bankruptcies or corporate carve-outs, data rooms are used to organize outstanding debt profiles, creditor agreements, and operational liabilities. == Emerging Technologies == In recent years, the management of virtual data rooms has increasingly incorporated Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). Generative AI and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools are now integrated into VDRs to automatically index thousands of documents, perform auto-redaction of personally identifiable information (PII), and assist buy-side analysts in identifying hidden liabilities within unstructured text data during the due diligence phase. Modern AI algorithms can extract line items from financial statements to instantly populate structured databases.

    Read more →
  • Forking lemma

    Forking lemma

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

    Read more →
  • Kernel embedding of distributions

    Kernel embedding of distributions

    In machine learning, the kernel embedding of distributions (also called the kernel mean or mean map) comprises a class of nonparametric methods in which a probability distribution is represented as an element of a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). A generalization of the individual data-point feature mapping done in classical kernel methods, the embedding of distributions into infinite-dimensional feature spaces can preserve all of the statistical features of arbitrary distributions, while allowing one to compare and manipulate distributions using Hilbert space operations such as inner products, distances, projections, linear transformations, and spectral analysis. This learning framework is very general and can be applied to distributions over any space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } on which a sensible kernel function (measuring similarity between elements of Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } ) may be defined. For example, various kernels have been proposed for learning from data which are: vectors in R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , discrete classes/categories, strings, graphs/networks, images, time series, manifolds, dynamical systems, and other structured objects. The theory behind kernel embeddings of distributions has been primarily developed by Alex Smola, Le Song, Arthur Gretton, and Bernhard Schölkopf. A review of recent works on kernel embedding of distributions can be found in. The analysis of distributions is fundamental in machine learning and statistics, and many algorithms in these fields rely on information theoretic approaches such as entropy, mutual information, or Kullback–Leibler divergence. However, to estimate these quantities, one must first either perform density estimation, or employ sophisticated space-partitioning/bias-correction strategies which are typically infeasible for high-dimensional data. Commonly, methods for modeling complex distributions rely on parametric assumptions that may be unfounded or computationally challenging (e.g. Gaussian mixture models), while nonparametric methods like kernel density estimation (Note: the smoothing kernels in this context have a different interpretation than the kernels discussed here) or characteristic function representation (via the Fourier transform of the distribution) break down in high-dimensional settings. Methods based on the kernel embedding of distributions sidestep these problems and also possess the following advantages: Data may be modeled without restrictive assumptions about the form of the distributions and relationships between variables Intermediate density estimation is not needed Practitioners may specify the properties of a distribution most relevant for their problem (incorporating prior knowledge via choice of the kernel) If a characteristic kernel is used, then the embedding can uniquely preserve all information about a distribution, while thanks to the kernel trick, computations on the potentially infinite-dimensional RKHS can be implemented in practice as simple Gram matrix operations Dimensionality-independent rates of convergence for the empirical kernel mean (estimated using samples from the distribution) to the kernel embedding of the true underlying distribution can be proven. Learning algorithms based on this framework exhibit good generalization ability and finite sample convergence, while often being simpler and more effective than information theoretic methods Thus, learning via the kernel embedding of distributions offers a principled drop-in replacement for information theoretic approaches and is a framework which not only subsumes many popular methods in machine learning and statistics as special cases, but also can lead to entirely new learning algorithms. == Definitions == Let X {\displaystyle X} denote a random variable with domain Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } and distribution P {\displaystyle P} . Given a symmetric, positive-definite kernel k : Ω × Ω → R {\displaystyle k:\Omega \times \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb {R} } the Moore–Aronszajn theorem asserts the existence of a unique RKHS H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } (a Hilbert space of functions f : Ω → R {\displaystyle f:\Omega \to \mathbb {R} } equipped with an inner product ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ H {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} and a norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ H {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|_{\mathcal {H}}} ) for which k {\displaystyle k} is a reproducing kernel, i.e., in which the element k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle k(x,\cdot )} satisfies the reproducing property ⟨ f , k ( x , ⋅ ) ⟩ H = f ( x ) ∀ f ∈ H , ∀ x ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle \langle f,k(x,\cdot )\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=f(x)\qquad \forall f\in {\mathcal {H}},\quad \forall x\in \Omega .} One may alternatively consider x ↦ k ( x , ⋅ ) {\displaystyle x\mapsto k(x,\cdot )} as an implicit feature mapping φ : Ω → H {\displaystyle \varphi :\Omega \rightarrow {\mathcal {H}}} (which is therefore also called the feature space), so that k ( x , x ′ ) = ⟨ φ ( x ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⟩ H {\displaystyle k(x,x')=\langle \varphi (x),\varphi (x')\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}} can be viewed as a measure of similarity between points x , x ′ ∈ Ω . {\displaystyle x,x'\in \Omega .} While the similarity measure is linear in the feature space, it may be highly nonlinear in the original space depending on the choice of kernel. === Kernel embedding === The kernel embedding of the distribution P {\displaystyle P} in H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} (also called the kernel mean or mean map) is given by: μ X := E [ k ( X , ⋅ ) ] = E [ φ ( X ) ] = ∫ Ω φ ( x ) d P ( x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{X}:=\mathbb {E} [k(X,\cdot )]=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)]=\int _{\Omega }\varphi (x)\ \mathrm {d} P(x)} If P {\displaystyle P} allows a square integrable density p {\displaystyle p} , then μ X = E k p {\displaystyle \mu _{X}={\mathcal {E}}_{k}p} , where E k {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}_{k}} is the Hilbert–Schmidt integral operator. A kernel is characteristic if the mean embedding μ : { family of distributions over Ω } → H {\displaystyle \mu :\{{\text{family of distributions over }}\Omega \}\to {\mathcal {H}}} is injective. Each distribution can thus be uniquely represented in the RKHS and all statistical features of distributions are preserved by the kernel embedding if a characteristic kernel is used. === Empirical kernel embedding === Given n {\displaystyle n} training examples { x 1 , … , x n } {\displaystyle \{x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\}} drawn independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) from P , {\displaystyle P,} the kernel embedding of P {\displaystyle P} can be empirically estimated as μ ^ X = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mu }}_{X}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})} === Joint distribution embedding === If Y {\displaystyle Y} denotes another random variable (for simplicity, assume the co-domain of Y {\displaystyle Y} is also Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } with the same kernel k {\displaystyle k} which satisfies ⟨ φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) , φ ( x ′ ) ⊗ φ ( y ′ ) ⟩ = k ( x , x ′ ) k ( y , y ′ ) {\displaystyle \langle \varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y),\varphi (x')\otimes \varphi (y')\rangle =k(x,x')k(y,y')} ), then the joint distribution P ( x , y ) ) {\displaystyle P(x,y))} can be mapped into a tensor product feature space H ⊗ H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}} via C X Y = E [ φ ( X ) ⊗ φ ( Y ) ] = ∫ Ω × Ω φ ( x ) ⊗ φ ( y ) d P ( x , y ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (X)\otimes \varphi (Y)]=\int _{\Omega \times \Omega }\varphi (x)\otimes \varphi (y)\ \mathrm {d} P(x,y)} By the equivalence between a tensor and a linear map, this joint embedding may be interpreted as an uncentered cross-covariance operator C X Y : H → H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}_{XY}:{\mathcal {H}}\to {\mathcal {H}}} from which the cross-covariance of functions f , g ∈ H {\displaystyle f,g\in {\mathcal {H}}} can be computed as Cov ⁡ ( f ( X ) , g ( Y ) ) := E [ f ( X ) g ( Y ) ] − E [ f ( X ) ] E [ g ( Y ) ] = ⟨ f , C X Y g ⟩ H = ⟨ f ⊗ g , C X Y ⟩ H ⊗ H {\displaystyle \operatorname {Cov} (f(X),g(Y)):=\mathbb {E} [f(X)g(Y)]-\mathbb {E} [f(X)]\mathbb {E} [g(Y)]=\langle f,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}g\rangle _{\mathcal {H}}=\langle f\otimes g,{\mathcal {C}}_{XY}\rangle _{{\mathcal {H}}\otimes {\mathcal {H}}}} Given n {\displaystyle n} pairs of training examples { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x n , y n ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\dots ,(x_{n},y_{n})\}} drawn i.i.d. from P {\displaystyle P} , we can also empirically estimate the joint distribution kernel embedding via C ^ X Y = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n φ ( x i ) ⊗ φ ( y i ) {\displaystyle {\widehat {\mathcal {C}}}_{XY}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varphi (x_{i})\otimes \varphi (y_{i})} === Conditional distribution embedding === Given a conditional distribution P ( y ∣ x ) , {\displaystyle P(y\mid x),} one can define the corresponding RKHS embedding as μ Y ∣ x = E [ φ ( Y ) ∣ X ] = ∫ Ω φ ( y ) d P ( y ∣ x ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y\mid x}=\mathbb {E} [\varphi (Y)\mid X]=\int _{\Omega

    Read more →
  • Social influence bias

    Social influence bias

    The social influence bias is an asymmetric herding effect on online social media platforms which makes users overcompensate for negative ratings but amplify positive ones. Driven by the desire to be accepted within a specific group, it surrounds the idea that people alter certain behaviors to be like those of the people within a group. Therefore, it is a subgroup term for various types of cognitive biases. Some social influence bias types include the bandwagon effect, authority bias, groupthinking effect, social comparison bias, social media bias and more. Understanding these biases helps us understand the term overall. However, the composition of the term "social influence bias" requires critical examination to understand the way that it affects individuals' and groups' lives. The term "influence" has 2 different types of stigma. For one, it surrounds the idea that people show their true inner selves when "under the influence". On the other end, it also proposes the idea that people are not their own selves when "under the influence". These tend to be constructions made by people, which also tend to fit the situation based on their own perspectives. So, even in social terms, it requires both sides to be examined to understand whether we truly are affected by context, or we remain to be and behave in terms of our own selves. The term "influence" doesn't necessarily say that there lies greater strength in our inner self's desires and decisions, nor does it say that external factors have the greater power. In a similar manner, both social and non-social judgments are to be associated with anxiety, but the same can't necessarily be said in the case of social conformity. So, the gray areas within this topic beg the question, "What does social influence bias say about us, and does it affect us all in the same way?" == Social media bias == Media bias is reflected in search systems in social media. Kulshrestha and her team found through research in 2018 that the top-ranked results returned by these search engines can influence users' perceptions when they conduct searches for events or people, which is particularly reflected in political bias and polarizing topics. Fueled by confirmation bias, online echo chambers allow users to be steeped within their own ideology. Because social media is tailored to your interests and your selected friends, it is an easy outlet for political echo chambers. Social media bias is also reflected in hostile media effect. Social media has a place in disseminating news in modern society, where viewers are exposed to other people's comments while reading news articles. In their 2020 study, Gearhart and her team showed that viewers' perceptions of bias increased and perceptions of credibility decreased after seeing comments with which they held different opinions. == In research context == In observational data, how social influence affects collected judgment is challenging to fully understand. Positive social influence can accumulate and result in a rating bubble, while negative social influence is neutralized by crowd correction. This phenomenon was first described in a paper written by Lev Muchnik, Sinan Aral and Sean J. Taylor in 2014, then the question was revisited by Cicognani et al., whose experiment reinforced Munchnik's and his co-authors' results. == Relevance == Online customer reviews are trusted sources of information in various contexts such as online marketplaces, dining, accommodation, movies, or digital products. However, these online ratings are not immune to herd behavior, which means that subsequent reviews are not independent from each other. As on many such sites, preceding opinions are visible to a new reviewer, he or she can be heavily influenced by the antecedent evaluations in his or her decision about the certain product, service or online content. This form of herding behavior inspired Muchnik, Aral and Taylor to conduct their experiment on influence in social contexts. == Experimental design == Muchnik, Aral, and Taylor designed a large-scale randomized experiment to measure social influence on user reviews. The experiment was conducted on social news aggregation website like Reddit. The study lasted for 5 months, the authors randomly assigned 101 281 comments to one of the following treatment groups: up-treated (4049), down-treated (1942), or control (the proportions reflect the observed ratio of up-and down-votes. Comments which fell to the first group were given an up-vote upon the creation of the comment, the second group got a down-vote upon creation, the comments in the control group remained untouched. A vote is equivalent to a single rating (+1 or -1). As other users are unable to trace a user’s votes, they were unaware of the experiment. Due to randomization, comments in the control and the treatment group were not different in terms of expected rating. The treated comments were viewed more than 10 million times and rated 308 515 times by successive users. == Results == The up-vote treatment increased the probability of up-voting by the first viewer by 32% over the control group, while the probability of down-voting did not change compared to the control group, which means that users did not correct the random positive rating. The upward bias remained inplace for the observed 5-month period. The accumulating herding effect increased the comment’s mean rating by 25% compared to the control group comments. Positively manipulated comments did receive higher ratings at all parts of the distribution, which means that they were also more likely to collect extremely high scores. The negative manipulation created an asymmetric herd effect: although the probability of subsequent down-votes was increased by the negative treatment, the probability of up-voting also grew for these comments. The community performed a correction which neutralized the negative treatment and resulted non-different final mean ratings from the control group. The authors also compared the final mean scores of comments across the most active topic categories on the website. The observed positive herding effect was present in the "politics," "culture and society," and "business" subreddits, but was not applicable for "economics," "IT," "fun," and "general news".- == Implications == The skewed nature of online ratings makes review outcomes different to what it would be without the social influence bias. In a 2009 experiment by Hu, Zhang and Pavlou showed that the distribution of reviews of a certain product made by unconnected individuals is approximately normal, however, the rating of the same product on Amazon followed a J-Shaped distribution with twice as much five-star ratings than others. Cicognani, Figini and Magnani came to similar conclusions after their experiment conducted on a tourism services website: positive preceding ratings influenced raters' behavior more than mediocre ones. Positive crowd correction makes community-based opinions upward-biased.

    Read more →
  • Squeaky Dolphin

    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 →
  • Data stream management system

    Data stream management system

    A data stream management system (DSMS) is a computer software system to manage continuous data streams. It is similar to a database management system (DBMS), which is, however, designed for static data in conventional databases. A DBMS also offers a flexible query processing so that the information needed can be expressed using queries. However, in contrast to a DBMS, a DSMS executes a continuous query that is not only performed once, but is permanently installed. Therefore, the query is continuously executed until it is explicitly uninstalled. Since most DSMS are data-driven, a continuous query produces new results as long as new data arrive at the system. This basic concept is similar to complex event processing so that both technologies are partially coalescing. == Functional principle == One important feature of a DSMS is the possibility to handle potentially infinite and rapidly changing data streams by offering flexible processing at the same time, although there are only limited resources such as main memory. The following table provides various principles of DSMS and compares them to traditional DBMS. == Processing and streaming models == One of the biggest challenges for a DSMS is to handle potentially infinite data streams using a fixed amount of memory and no random access to the data. There are different approaches to limit the amount of data in one pass, which can be divided into two classes. For the one hand, there are compression techniques that try to summarize the data and for the other hand there are window techniques that try to portion the data into (finite) parts. === Synopses === The idea behind compression techniques is to maintain only a synopsis of the data, but not all (raw) data points of the data stream. The algorithms range from selecting random data points called sampling to summarization using histograms, wavelets or sketching. One simple example of a compression is the continuous calculation of an average. Instead of memorizing each data point, the synopsis only holds the sum and the number of items. The average can be calculated by dividing the sum by the number. However, it should be mentioned that synopses cannot reflect the data accurately. Thus, a processing that is based on synopses may produce inaccurate results. === Windows === Instead of using synopses to compress the characteristics of the whole data streams, window techniques only look on a portion of the data. This approach is motivated by the idea that only the most recent data are relevant. Therefore, a window continuously cuts out a part of the data stream, e.g. the last ten data stream elements, and only considers these elements during the processing. There are different kinds of such windows like sliding windows that are similar to FIFO lists or tumbling windows that cut out disjoint parts. Furthermore, the windows can also be differentiated into element-based windows, e.g., to consider the last ten elements, or time-based windows, e.g., to consider the last ten seconds of data. There are also different approaches to implementing windows. There are, for example, approaches that use timestamps or time intervals for system-wide windows or buffer-based windows for each single processing step. Sliding-window query processing is also suitable to being implemented in parallel processors by exploiting parallelism between different windows and/or within each window extent. == Query processing == Since there are a lot of prototypes, there is no standardized architecture. However, most DSMS are based on the query processing in DBMS by using declarative languages to express queries, which are translated into a plan of operators. These plans can be optimized and executed. A query processing often consists of the following steps. === Formulation of continuous queries === The formulation of queries is mostly done using declarative languages like SQL in DBMS. Since there are no standardized query languages to express continuous queries, there are a lot of languages and variations. However, most of them are based on SQL, such as the Continuous Query Language (CQL), StreamSQL and ESP. There are also graphical approaches where each processing step is a box and the processing flow is expressed by arrows between the boxes. The language strongly depends on the processing model. For example, if windows are used for the processing, the definition of a window has to be expressed. In StreamSQL, a query with a sliding window for the last 10 elements looks like follows: This stream continuously calculates the average value of "price" of the last 10 tuples, but only considers those tuples whose prices are greater than 100.0. In the next step, the declarative query is translated into a logical query plan. A query plan is a directed graph where the nodes are operators and the edges describe the processing flow. Each operator in the query plan encapsulates the semantic of a specific operation, such as filtering or aggregation. In DSMSs that process relational data streams, the operators are equal or similar to the operators of the Relational algebra, so that there are operators for selection, projection, join, and set operations. This operator concept allows the very flexible and versatile processing of a DSMS. === Optimization of queries === The logical query plan can be optimized, which strongly depends on the streaming model. The basic concepts for optimizing continuous queries are equal to those from database systems. If there are relational data streams and the logical query plan is based on relational operators from the Relational algebra, a query optimizer can use the algebraic equivalences to optimize the plan. These may be, for example, to push selection operators down to the sources, because they are not so computationally intensive like join operators. Furthermore, there are also cost-based optimization techniques like in DBMS, where a query plan with the lowest costs is chosen from different equivalent query plans. One example is to choose the order of two successive join operators. In DBMS this decision is mostly done by certain statistics of the involved databases. But, since the data of a data streams is unknown in advance, there are no such statistics in a DSMS. However, it is possible to observe a data stream for a certain time to obtain some statistics. Using these statistics, the query can also be optimized later. So, in contrast to a DBMS, some DSMS allows to optimize the query even during runtime. Therefore, a DSMS needs some plan migration strategies to replace a running query plan with a new one. === Transformation of queries === Since a logical operator is only responsible for the semantics of an operation but does not consist of any algorithms, the logical query plan must be transformed into an executable counterpart. This is called a physical query plan. The distinction between a logical and a physical operator plan allows more than one implementation for the same logical operator. The join, for example, is logically the same, although it can be implemented by different algorithms like a Nested loop join or a Sort-merge join. Notice, these algorithms also strongly depend on the used stream and processing model. Finally, the query is available as a physical query plan. === Execution of queries === Since the physical query plan consists of executable algorithms, it can be directly executed. For this, the physical query plan is installed into the system. The bottom of the graph (of the query plan) is connected to the incoming sources, which can be everything like connectors to sensors. The top of the graph is connected to the outgoing sinks, which may be for example a visualization. Since most DSMSs are data-driven, a query is executed by pushing the incoming data elements from the source through the query plan to the sink. Each time when a data element passes an operator, the operator performs its specific operation on the data element and forwards the result to all successive operators. == Examples == AURORA, StreamBase Systems, Inc. Archived 23 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine Hortonworks DataFlow IBM Streams NIAGARA Query Engine NiagaraST: A Research Data Stream Management System at Portland State University Odysseus, an open source Java-based framework for Data Stream Management Systems Pipeline DB PIPES Archived 24 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine, webMethods Business Events QStream SAS Event Stream Processing SQLstream STREAM StreamGlobe StreamInsight TelegraphCQ WSO2 Stream Processor

    Read more →
  • AirDine

    AirDine

    AirDine was a mobile app within the platform economy where individuals acted as both supplier and customer for a supper club. AirDine discontinued their service after 31 October 2017. == Operations == AirDine was an online marketplace for home dining that connected users that liked to cook with users looking for a dining experience. Users were categorized as "Hosts" and "Guests," both of whom needed to register with AirDine. AirDine acted as a two-sided market for home dining that allowed hosts and guests, and did not act as a restaurant or host any dinners itself. AirDine charged a service fee. Security and safety of the host were not vetted by AirDine and were completely left to users based on published reviews. Profiles included user reviews and shared social connections to build trust among users. AirDine also included a private messaging system.

    Read more →
  • POODLE

    POODLE

    POODLE (which stands for "Padding Oracle On Downgraded Legacy Encryption") is a security vulnerability which takes advantage of the fallback to SSL 3.0. If attackers successfully exploit this vulnerability, on average, they only need to make 256 SSL 3.0 requests to reveal one byte of encrypted messages. Bodo Möller, Thai Duong and Krzysztof Kotowicz from the Google Security Team discovered this vulnerability; they disclosed the vulnerability publicly on October 14, 2014 (despite the paper being dated "September 2014"). On December 8, 2014, a variation of the POODLE vulnerability that affected TLS was announced. The CVE-ID associated with the original POODLE attack is CVE-2014-3566. F5 Networks filed for CVE-2014-8730 as well, see POODLE attack against TLS section below. == Prevention == To mitigate the POODLE attack, one approach is to completely disable SSL 3.0 on the client side and the server side. However, some old clients and servers do not support TLS 1.0 and above. Thus, the authors of the paper on POODLE attacks also encourage browser and server implementation of TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV, which will make downgrade attacks impossible. Another mitigation is to implement "anti-POODLE record splitting". It splits the records into several parts and ensures none of them can be attacked. However the problem of the splitting is that, though valid according to the specification, it may also cause compatibility issues due to problems in server-side implementations. A full list of browser versions and levels of vulnerability to different attacks (including POODLE) can be found in the article Transport Layer Security. Opera 25 implemented this mitigation in addition to TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV. Google's Chrome browser and their servers had already supported TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV. Google stated in October 2014 it was planning to remove SSL 3.0 support from their products completely within a few months. Fallback to SSL 3.0 has been disabled in Chrome 39, released in November 2014. SSL 3.0 has been disabled by default in Chrome 40, released in January 2015. Mozilla disabled SSL 3.0 in Firefox 34 and ESR 31.3, which were released in December 2014, and added support of TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV in Firefox 35. Microsoft published a security advisory to explain how to disable SSL 3.0 in Internet Explorer and Windows OS, and on October 29, 2014, Microsoft released a fix which disables SSL 3.0 in Internet Explorer on Windows Vista / Server 2003 and above and announced a plan to disable SSL 3.0 by default in their products and services within a few months. Microsoft disabled fallback to SSL 3.0 in Internet Explorer 11 for Protect Mode sites on February 10, 2015, and for other sites on April 14, 2015. Apple's Safari (on OS X 10.8, iOS 8.1 and later) mitigated against POODLE by removing support for all CBC protocols in SSL 3.0, however, this left RC4 which is also completely broken by the RC4 attacks in SSL 3.0. POODLE was completely mitigated in OS X 10.11 (El Capitan 2015) and iOS 9 (2015). To prevent the POODLE attack, some web services dropped support of SSL 3.0. Examples include CloudFlare and Wikimedia. Network Security Services version 3.17.1 (released on October 3, 2014) and 3.16.2.3 (released on October 27, 2014) introduced support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV, and NSS will disable SSL 3.0 by default in April 2015. OpenSSL versions 1.0.1j, 1.0.0o and 0.9.8zc, released on October 15, 2014, introduced support for TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV. LibreSSL version 2.1.1, released on October 16, 2014, disabled SSL 3.0 by default. == POODLE attack against TLS == A new variant of the original POODLE attack was announced on December 8, 2014. This attack exploits implementation flaws of CBC encryption mode in the TLS 1.0 - 1.2 protocols. Even though TLS specifications require servers to check the padding, some implementations fail to validate it properly, which makes some servers vulnerable to POODLE even if they disable SSL 3.0. SSL Pulse showed "about 10% of the servers are vulnerable to the POODLE attack against TLS" before this vulnerability was announced. The CVE-ID for F5 Networks' implementation bug is CVE-2014-8730. The entry in NIST's NVD states that this CVE-ID is to be used only for F5 Networks' implementation of TLS, and that other vendors whose products have the same failure to validate the padding mistake in their implementations like A10 Networks and Cisco Systems need to issue their own CVE-IDs for their implementation errors because this is not a flaw in the protocol but in the implementation. The POODLE attack against TLS was found to be easier to initiate than the initial POODLE attack against SSL. There is no need to downgrade clients to SSL 3.0, meaning fewer steps are needed to execute a successful attack.

    Read more →
  • SIPRNet

    SIPRNet

    The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) is "a system of interconnected computer networks used by the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of State to transmit classified information (up to and including information classified SECRET) by packet switching over the 'completely secure' environment". It also provides services such as hypertext document access and electronic mail. SIPRNet is a component of the Defense Information Systems Network. Other components handle communications with other security needs, such as the NIPRNet, which is used for nonsecure communications, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS), which is used for Top Secret communications. == Access == According to the U.S. Department of State Web Development Handbook, domain structure and naming conventions are the same as for the open internet, except for the addition of a second-level domain, like, e.g., "sgov" between state and gov: openforum.state.sgov.gov. Files originating from SIPRNet are marked by a header tag "SIPDIS" (SIPrnet DIStribution). A corresponding second-level domain smil.mil exists for DoD users. Access is also available to a "...small pool of trusted allies, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand...". This group (including the US) is known as the Five Eyes. SIPRNet was one of the networks accessed by Chelsea Manning, convicted of leaking the video used in WikiLeaks' "Collateral Murder" release as well as the source of the US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks in November 2010. == Alternate names == SIPRNet and NIPRNet are referred to colloquially as SIPPERnet and NIPPERnet (or simply sipper and nipper), respectively.

    Read more →