AI Headshot Make

AI Headshot Make — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Zero-day vulnerability

  A zero-day (also known as a 0-day) is a vulnerability or security hole in a computer system unknown to its developers or anyone capable of mitigating it. Until the vulnerability is remedied, threat actors can exploit it in a zero-day exploit, or zero-day attack. The term "zero-day" originally referred to the number of days since a new piece of software was released to the public, so "zero-day software" was obtained by hacking into a developer's computer before release. Eventually the term was applied to the vulnerabilities that allowed this hacking, and to the number of days that the vendor has had to fix them. Vendors who discover the vulnerability may create patches or advise workarounds to mitigate it, though users need to deploy that mitigation to eliminate the vulnerability in their systems. Zero-day attacks are severe threats. == Definition == Despite developers' goal of delivering a product that works entirely as intended, virtually all products contain software and hardware bugs. If a bug creates a security risk, it is called a vulnerability. Vulnerabilities vary in their ability to be exploited by malicious actors. Some are not usable at all, while others can be used to disrupt the device with a denial of service attack. The most dangerous allow the attacker to inject and run their own code, without the user being aware of it. Although the term "zero-day" initially referred to the time since the vendor had become aware of the vulnerability, zero-day vulnerabilities can also be defined as the subset of vulnerabilities for which no patch or other fix is available. A zero-day exploit is any exploit that takes advantage of such a vulnerability. == Exploits == An exploit is the delivery mechanism that takes advantage of the vulnerability to penetrate the target's systems, for such purposes as disrupting operations, installing malware, or exfiltrating data. Researchers Lillian Ablon and Andy Bogart write that "little is known about the true extent, use, benefit, and harm of zero-day exploits". Exploits based on zero-day vulnerabilities are considered more dangerous than those that take advantage of a known vulnerability. However, it is likely that most cyberattacks use known vulnerabilities, not zero-days. Governments of states are the primary users of zero-day exploits, not only because of the high cost of finding or buying vulnerabilities, but also the significant cost of writing the attack software. Nevertheless, anyone can use a vulnerability, and according to research by the RAND Corporation, "any serious attacker can always get an affordable zero-day for almost any target". Many targeted attacks and most advanced persistent threats rely on zero-day vulnerabilities. In 2017, the average time to develop an exploit from a zero-day vulnerability was estimated at 22 days. The difficulty of developing exploits has been increasing over time due to increased anti-exploitation features in popular software. === Window of vulnerability === Zero-day vulnerabilities are often classified as alive—meaning that there is no public knowledge of the vulnerability—and dead—the vulnerability has been disclosed, but not patched. If the software's maintainers are actively searching for vulnerabilities, it is a living vulnerability; such vulnerabilities in unmaintained software are called immortal. Zombie vulnerabilities can be exploited in older versions of the software but have been patched in newer versions. Even publicly known and zombie vulnerabilities are often exploitable for an extended period. Security patches can take months to develop, or may never be developed. A patch can have negative effects on the functionality of software and users may need to test the patch to confirm functionality and compatibility. Larger organizations may fail to identify and patch all dependencies, while smaller enterprises and personal users may not install patches. Research suggests that risk of cyberattack increases if the vulnerability is made publicly known or a patch is released. Cybercriminals can reverse engineer the patch to find the underlying vulnerability and develop exploits, often faster than users install the patch. According to research by RAND Corporation published in 2017, zero-day exploits remain usable for 6.9 years on average, although those purchased from a third party only remain usable for 1.4 years on average. The researchers were unable to determine if any particular platform or software (such as open-source software) had any relationship to the life expectancy of a zero-day vulnerability. Although the RAND researchers found that 5.7 percent of a stockpile of secret zero-day vulnerabilities will have been discovered by someone else within a year, another study found a higher overlap rate, as high as 10.8 percent to 21.9 percent per year. == Countermeasures == Because, by definition, there is no patch that can block a zero-day exploit, all systems employing the software or hardware with the vulnerability are at risk. This includes secure systems such as banks and governments that have all patches up to date. Security systems are designed around known vulnerabilities, and repeated exploitations of a zero-day exploit could continue undetected for an extended period of time. Although there have been many proposals for a system that is effective at detecting zero-day exploits, this remains an active area of research in 2023. Many organizations have adopted defense-in-depth tactics so that attacks are likely to require breaching multiple levels of security, which makes it more difficult to achieve. Conventional cybersecurity measures such as training and access control — including multi-factor authentication, least-privilege access, and air-gapping makes it harder to compromise systems with a zero-day exploit. Since writing perfectly secure software is impossible, some researchers argue that driving up the cost of exploits is considered a good strategy to reduce the burden of cyberattacks. == Market == Zero-day exploits can fetch millions of dollars. There are three main types of buyers: White: the vendor, or to third parties such as the Zero Day Initiative that disclose to the vendor. Often such disclosure is in exchange for a bug bounty. Not all companies respond positively to disclosures, as they can cause legal liability and operational overhead. It is not uncommon to receive cease-and-desist letters from software vendors after disclosing a vulnerability for free. Gray: the largest and most lucrative. Government or intelligence agencies buy zero-days and may use it in an attack, stockpile the vulnerability, or notify the vendor. The United States federal government is one of the largest buyers. As of 2013, the Five Eyes (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) captured the plurality of the market and other significant purchasers included Russia, India, Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, North Korea, and Iran. Middle Eastern countries were poised to become the biggest spenders. Black: organized crime, which typically prefers exploit software rather than just knowledge of a vulnerability. These users are more likely to employ "half-days" where a patch is already available. In 2015, the markets for government and crime were estimated at least ten times larger than the white market. Sellers are often hacker groups that seek out vulnerabilities in widely used software for financial reward. Some will only sell to certain buyers, while others will sell to anyone. White market sellers are more likely to be motivated by non pecuniary rewards such as recognition and intellectual challenge. Selling zero-day exploits is legal. Despite calls for more regulation, law professor Mailyn Fidler says there is little chance of an international agreement because key players such as Russia and Israel are not interested. The sellers and buyers that trade in zero-days tend to be secretive, relying on non-disclosure agreements and classified information laws to keep the exploits secret. If the vulnerability becomes known, it can be patched and its value consequently crashes. Because the market lacks transparency, it can be hard for parties to find a fair price. Sellers might not be paid if the vulnerability was disclosed before it was verified, or if the buyer declined to purchase it but used it anyway. With the proliferation of middlemen, sellers could never know to what use the exploits could be put. Buyers could not guarantee that the exploit was not sold to another party. Both buyers and sellers advertise on the dark web. Research published in 2022 based on maximum prices paid as quoted by a single exploit broker found a 44 percent annualized inflation rate in exploit pricing. Remote zero-click exploits could fetch the highest price, while those that require local access to the device are much cheaper. Vulnerabilities in widely used software are also more expensive. They estimated that around 400 to 1,500 people sold exploits to th

  Read more →
• 

  Strong cryptography

  Strong cryptography or cryptographically strong are general terms used to designate the cryptographic algorithms that, when used correctly, provide a very high (usually insurmountable) level of protection against any eavesdropper, including the government agencies. There is no precise definition of the boundary line between the strong cryptography and (breakable) weak cryptography, as this border constantly shifts due to improvements in hardware and cryptanalysis techniques. These improvements eventually place the capabilities once available only to the NSA within the reach of a skilled individual, so in practice there are only two levels of cryptographic security, "cryptography that will stop your kid sister from reading your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files" (Bruce Schneier). The strong cryptography algorithms have high security strength, for practical purposes usually defined as a number of bits in the key. For example, the United States government, when dealing with export control of encryption, considered as of 1999 any implementation of the symmetric encryption algorithm with the key length above 56 bits or its public key equivalent to be strong and thus potentially a subject to the export licensing. To be strong, an algorithm needs to have a sufficiently long key and be free of known mathematical weaknesses, as exploitation of these effectively reduces the key size. At the beginning of the 21st century, the typical security strength of the strong symmetrical encryption algorithms is 128 bits (slightly lower values still can be strong, but usually there is little technical gain in using smaller key sizes). Demonstrating the resistance of any cryptographic scheme to attack is a complex matter, requiring extensive testing and reviews, preferably in a public forum. Good algorithms and protocols are required (similarly, good materials are required to construct a strong building), but good system design and implementation is needed as well: "it is possible to build a cryptographically weak system using strong algorithms and protocols" (just like the use of good materials in construction does not guarantee a solid structure). Many real-life systems turn out to be weak when the strong cryptography is not used properly, for example, random nonces are reused A successful attack might not even involve algorithm at all, for example, if the key is generated from a password, guessing a weak password is easy and does not depend on the strength of the cryptographic primitives. A user can become the weakest link in the overall picture, for example, by sharing passwords and hardware tokens with the colleagues. == Background == The level of expense required for strong cryptography originally restricted its use to the government and military agencies, until the middle of the 20th century the process of encryption required a lot of human labor and errors (preventing the decryption) were very common, so only a small share of written information could have been encrypted. US government, in particular, was able to keep a monopoly on the development and use of cryptography in the US into the 1960s. In the 1970, the increased availability of powerful computers and unclassified research breakthroughs (Data Encryption Standard, the Diffie-Hellman and RSA algorithms) made strong cryptography available for civilian use. Mid-1990s saw the worldwide proliferation of knowledge and tools for strong cryptography. By the 21st century the technical limitations were gone, although the majority of the communication were still unencrypted. At the same the cost of building and running systems with strong cryptography became roughly the same as the one for the weak cryptography. The use of computers changed the process of cryptanalysis, famously with Bletchley Park's Colossus. But just as the development of digital computers and electronics helped in cryptanalysis, it also made possible much more complex ciphers. It is typically the case that use of a quality cipher is very efficient, while breaking it requires an effort many orders of magnitude larger - making cryptanalysis so inefficient and impractical as to be effectively impossible. == Cryptographically strong algorithms == This term "cryptographically strong" is often used to describe an encryption algorithm, and implies, in comparison to some other algorithm (which is thus cryptographically weak), greater resistance to attack. But it can also be used to describe hashing and unique identifier and filename creation algorithms. See for example the description of the Microsoft .NET runtime library function Path.GetRandomFileName. In this usage, the term means "difficult to guess". An encryption algorithm is intended to be unbreakable (in which case it is as strong as it can ever be), but might be breakable (in which case it is as weak as it can ever be) so there is not, in principle, a continuum of strength as the idiom would seem to imply: Algorithm A is stronger than Algorithm B which is stronger than Algorithm C, and so on. The situation is made more complex, and less subsumable into a single strength metric, by the fact that there are many types of cryptanalytic attack and that any given algorithm is likely to force the attacker to do more work to break it when using one attack than another. There is only one known unbreakable cryptographic system, the one-time pad, which is not generally possible to use because of the difficulties involved in exchanging one-time pads without them being compromised. So any encryption algorithm can be compared to the perfect algorithm, the one-time pad. The usual sense in which this term is (loosely) used, is in reference to a particular attack, brute force key search — especially in explanations for newcomers to the field. Indeed, with this attack (always assuming keys to have been randomly chosen), there is a continuum of resistance depending on the length of the key used. But even so there are two major problems: many algorithms allow use of different length keys at different times, and any algorithm can forgo use of the full key length possible. Thus, Blowfish and RC5 are block cipher algorithms whose design specifically allowed for several key lengths, and who cannot therefore be said to have any particular strength with respect to brute force key search. Furthermore, US export regulations restrict key length for exportable cryptographic products and in several cases in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g., famously in the case of Lotus Notes' export approval) only partial keys were used, decreasing 'strength' against brute force attack for those (export) versions. More or less the same thing happened outside the US as well, as for example in the case of more than one of the cryptographic algorithms in the GSM cellular telephone standard. The term is commonly used to convey that some algorithm is suitable for some task in cryptography or information security, but also resists cryptanalysis and has no, or fewer, security weaknesses. Tasks are varied, and might include: generating randomness encrypting data providing a method to ensure data integrity Cryptographically strong would seem to mean that the described method has some kind of maturity, perhaps even approved for use against different kinds of systematic attacks in theory and/or practice. Indeed, that the method may resist those attacks long enough to protect the information carried (and what stands behind the information) for a useful length of time. But due to the complexity and subtlety of the field, neither is almost ever the case. Since such assurances are not actually available in real practice, sleight of hand in language which implies that they are will generally be misleading. There will always be uncertainty as advances (e.g., in cryptanalytic theory or merely affordable computer capacity) may reduce the effort needed to successfully use some attack method against an algorithm. In addition, actual use of cryptographic algorithms requires their encapsulation in a cryptosystem, and doing so often introduces vulnerabilities which are not due to faults in an algorithm. For example, essentially all algorithms require random choice of keys, and any cryptosystem which does not provide such keys will be subject to attack regardless of any attack resistant qualities of the encryption algorithm(s) used. == Legal issues == Widespread use of encryption increases the costs of surveillance, so the government policies aim to regulate the use of the strong cryptography. In the 2000s, the effect of encryption on the surveillance capabilities was limited by the ever-increasing share of communications going through the global social media platforms, that did not use the strong encryption and provided governments with the requested data. Murphy talks about a legislative balance that needs to be struck between the power of the government that are broad enough to be able to follow the qui

  Read more →
• 

  Forking lemma

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

  Read more →
• 

  Consumer relationship system

  Consumer relationship systems (CRS) are specialized customer relationship management (CRM) software applications that are used to handle a company's dealings with its customers. Current consumer relationship systems integrate the software with telephone and call recording systems as well as with corporate systems for input and reporting. Customers can provide input from the company's website directly into the CRS. These systems are popular because they can deliver the 'voice of the consumer' that contributes to product quality improvement and that ultimately increases corporate profits. Consumer relationship systems that provide automated support as well as advanced systems may have artificial intelligence (AI) interfaces that can extract and analyse data collected, or handle basic questions and complaints. == History == The first CRS was developed in the 1980s. In 1981 Michael Wilke and Robert Thornton founded Wilke/Thornton, Inc in Columbus, Ohio, to develop new CRS software.

  Read more →
• 

  Quantexa

  Quantexa is a UK-based software company that develops artificial intelligence-based applications for data analytics and decision-making. The company was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in London, with operations in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. As of 2025, Quantexa reported a valuation of $2.6 billion and provides services to organizations in over 70 countries. Investors include Warburg Pincus, HSBC, and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. == History == Quantexa was founded in London in 2016 by several co-founders, including Jamie Hutton, Richard Seewald, Imam Hoque, Felix Hoddinott, and Vishal Marria, who also serves as the company's chief executive officer. The company was established to develop tools intended to address limitations in traditional data analysis methods, particularly those related to identifying hidden connections across large datasets. The name "Quantexa" is derived from the company's focus on quantitative methods and data analysis. In 2023, Quantexa acquired Dublin-based AI firm Aylien. In April 2023, the company completed a Series E funding round, raising $129 million at a valuation of approximately $1.8 billion, marking its entry into "unicorn" status. In October 2024, the company reported annual recurring revenue (ARR) exceeding $100 million. In early 2025, Quantexa participated in the World Economic Forum's Unicorn Program, which supports high-growth technology companies. In March 2025, Quantexa completed a Series F funding round of $175 million, led by Teachers' Venture Growth, the venture arm of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. That August, the company was reported to be considering a 2026 IPO. The company formed a partnership with Zurich in October 2025, the first insurer to add its AI-based Decision Intelligence platform to enhance fraud detection.

  Read more →
• 

  Peñabot

  Peñabot is the nickname for automated social media accounts allegedly used by the Mexican government of Enrique Peña Nieto and the PRI political party to keep unfavorable news from reaching the Mexican public. Peñabot accusations are related to the broader issue of fake news in the 21st century. == History of disinformation in Mexican politics == The PRI political party has been reported to use fake news since before Peña Nieto. The main tactic originally was to spread such propaganda through open radio and television networks. Such tactic was effective in Mexico, because newspaper readership is low and cable TV is largely limited to the middle classes; consequently, the country's two major television networks – Televisa and TV Azteca – exert a significant influence in national politics. Televisa itself, not only owns around two-thirds of the programming on Mexico's TV channels, making it not only Mexico's largest television network, but also is the largest media network in the Spanish-speaking world. == Peñabots == Analysts have given the name Peñabots to a suspected network of automated accounts on social media used by the Mexican government to spread pro-government propaganda and to marginalize dissenting opinions in social media. The bots were first noticed in the 2012 elections when they were used to disseminate opinions in support of Enrique Peña Nieto on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. According to Aristegui Noticias, their usage went against articles 6 and 134 of the Mexican Constitution. Those used by Peña Nieto's government cost an estimated 80 million pesos monthly, which news outlets argued only helped the government spread fake support towards the president, but did not have a benefit towards Mexican people (with whom EPN was highly unpopular). Facebook held approximately 640,321 Peñabots, while Twitter had less. As of July 2017, Oxford Internet Institute's Computational Propaganda Research Project claimed many western democracies, Mexico included, perform social media manipulation, thus saying the manipulation comes directly from the Mexican government itself. During Peña Nieto's subsequent presidency, analysts noted that Peñabots were used to overpower trending topics that critiqued government, to flood trending government critical hashtags with spam, to create fake trends by pushing alternative hashtags, and to push smear campaigns and threats against government-critical activists and journalists. Peñabots were distinguished as their pattern of activity was distinct from that of ordinary interaction on social networks. === Meadebots === On Twitter it was reported that about 94% of the followers of 2018 presidential candidate from the PRI Jose Antonio Meade were bots. When Antonio Meade presented himself as a candidate for the 2018 presidential election, his social media accounts such as "@MovimientoMEADE" (created by the PRI's official account @PRI_Nacional), obtained a huge quantity of followers in a short span of time. Some users noticed and brought it to attention, and after investigation it was reported 94% of such followers were bots (702,000 out of 747,000), and the account was eliminated from Twitter after 20 hours. The fake accounts used the hashtags #YoConMeade and #Meade18. It was further revealed was that Meade's official account on Twitter, @JoseAMeadeK had 25% bots (216,000 fake followers out of the 981,000). == Manipulation of news media in Mexico, through television == The Mexican government of Peña Nieto has been accused of using various means to keep unfavorable news from reaching the Mexican people. Many Mexicans have protested this practice as it clearly goes against the freedom of speech. The PRI has been reported to use fake news since before Peña Nieto. The main tactic has been to spread such propaganda through radio and television. This tactic is perceived as effective in Mexico, because newspaper readership is low and research on the Internet and cable TV is largely limited to the middle classes; consequently, the country's two major television networks – Televisa and TV Azteca – exert a significant influence in national politics. Televisa itself, owns around two-thirds of the programming on Mexico's TV channels, making it not only Mexico's largest television network, but also is the largest media network in the Spanish-speaking world. In June 2012, before the 2012 Mexican presidential elections, the British newspaper The Guardian published a series of allegations claiming Televisa, sold favorable coverage to top politicians in its news and entertainment shows, this scandal became known as the Televisa controversy. The documents published by 'The Guardian alleged that a secretive circle within Televisa manipulated news coverage to favor PRI presidential candidate Enrique Peña Nieto, who was poised as favorite to win. Televisa's secret circle supposedly commissioned videos to promote Peña Nieto and lash out his political rivals in 2009. The Guardian documents suggest that Televisa's secret team distributed such videos through e-mail, posting them posted them on Facebook and YouTube, some can still be seen there. Another document was a PowerPoint presentation, with a slide explicitly aimed at rival leftist candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Supposedly given to The Guardian by a Televisa employee. The document's authenticity was never possible to confirm– however dates, names, and events largely coincide. Televisa refused to talk the documents, and denied a relationship with the PRI or its presidential candidate, saying that they had provided equal media coverage to all parties. Televisa published an article supposedly showing discrepancies in The Guardian documents and denying accusations. Mexican citizens complained about the perceived favoritism towards Enrique Peña Nieto and the PRI, protesting through the Yo Soy 132 movement which Televisa covered in detail. However, Televisa's news media coverage is perceived to have been biased, by using a media coverage tactic Mexican citizens call cortinas de humo (smoke screens). These introduce a news scandal giving extensive coverage to distract citizens from a potential conflict-of-interest or controversy that could damage the image of the politician favored by the network. An example of a perceived smoke screen would be the news media coverage of "Caso Michoacán" and "Caso Paolette" distracting all the attention from the parallel "Yo soy 132" movement. A few years later, on the day of September 11, 2016; factual evidence of Televisa's performing media manipulation emerged, when a Televisa news anchor while live-on air reading a teleprompter, mistakenly read out loud that "try that Jaime "Ël Bronco" Rodríguez Calderón (Nuevo Leon's governor) is mentioned as little as possible". Newspaper El Universal caught it on video and published it social media. Televisa didn't mention the story and declined to comment. Lack of news coverage concerning Nuevo León's Governor Jaime Rodriguez, is perceived due to him being the first elected governor to not be part of any political party (Independent Governor), and because unlike the governors from the PRI preceding him, the independent governor "El Bronco" doesn't spend money on publicity at all, preferring to communicate all news by using social media such as Twitter and Facebook. While the incident may have proven Televisa's bias, there wasn't anything to incriminate the PRI political party or Enrique Peña Nieto, though it did further suspicion of Televisa manipulating news media. In contrast, a December 2017 article of The New York Times, reported Enrique Peña Nieto spending about 2000 million dollars on publicity, during his first 5 years as president, the largest publicity budget ever spent by a Mexican President. Additionally, 68 percent of news journalists admitted to not believe to have enough freedom of speech, and award-winning news reporter Carmen Aristegui was controversially fired shortly after revealing the Mexican White House scandals. == Violence and spying towards news journalists and civil rights activists == Far for only being receiving accusations of spreading fake news, the Mexican government of EPN (Enrique Peña Nieto) has also been accused of violence towards news journalists, and of spying on them, and also towards civil right leaders and their families. During his tenure as president, Peña Nieto has been accused of failing to protect news journalists, whose deaths are speculated to be politically triggered, by politicians attempting to prevent them from covering political scandals. The New York Times published a news report on the matter titled, "In Mexico it's easy to kill a journalist", on it mentioning how during EPN's government, Mexico became one of the worst countries on which to be a journalist. The assassination of journalist Javier Valdez on May 23, 2017, received national coverage, with multiple news journalists

  Read more →
• 

  Protecting Kids From Social Media Act

  Protecting Kids on Social Media Act or HB 1891 is an American law that was introduced by William Lamberth of Sumner County, Tennessee and was signed into law by Tennessee's governor on May 2, 2024. The bill requires social media websites such as X, YouTube, TikTok, Facebook and others to verify the age of users and if those users are under 18, they must have parental consent. == Progress == The law passed the Tennessee State Legislature with little opposition: the bill had only two no votes in the House from Aftyn Behn and Vincent B. Dixie, and it had zero no votes in the Senate. == Bill summary == Every social media company must verify the age of new users after the law takes effect, and if the user had created an account before the law took effect, they must verify the age of the person attempting to access the account within 14 days. If the new user or the user who originally owned an account is under 18 years of age, they must get parental consent and the third party or social media company must not retain the data from the age verification process or obtaining parental consent. Parents who are account holders of those under 18 can view the privacy settings, set daily time restrictions, and implement breaks during which the minor cannot access the account. The law is enforced by the Attorney General of Tennessee and went into effect on January 1, 2025. == Lawsuit == On October 3, 2024, the trade association NetChoice filed a lawsuit against Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti in the Middle District Court of Tennessee, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment. The Judge for the case is William L. Campbell Jr. An initial case management conference was originally scheduled for December 4, 2024, however it was delayed because of the Supreme Court case United States v. Skrmetti, recommending that the conference be delayed after January 20, 2025. On February 14, 2025, Judge Eli Richardson denied NetChoice's motion for a temporary restraining order because it would disrupt the status quo of the case.

  Read more →
• 

  Private message

  In computer networking, a private message (PM), or direct message (DM), refers to a private communication, often text-based, sent or received by a user of a private communication channel on any given platform. Unlike public posts, PMs are only viewable by the participants. Long a function present on IRCs and Internet forums, private channels for PMs have also been prevalent features on instant messaging (IM) and on social media networks. It may be either synchronous (e.g. on an IM) or asynchronous (e.g. on an Internet forum). The term private message (PM) originated as a feature on internet forums, while the term direct message (DM) originated as a feature on Twitter. Due to the popularity of the latter service, DM has since been appropriated by other platforms, such as Instagram, and is often genericized in popular usage. == Overview == There are two main types of private messages, and one obscure type: One type includes those found on IRCs and Internet forums, as well as on social media services like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, where the focus is public posting, PMs allow users to communicate privately without leaving the platform. The second type are those relayed through instant messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Snapchat, where users join the networks primarily to exchange PMs. A third type, peer-to-peer messaging, occurs when users create and own the infrastructure used to transmit and store the messages; while features vary depending on application, they give the user full control over the data they transmit. An example of software that enables this kind of messaging is Classified-ads. Besides serving as a tool to connect privately with friends and family, PMs have gained momentum in the workplace. Working professionals use PMs to reach coworkers in other spaces and increase efficiency during meetings. Although useful, using PMs in the workplace may blur the boundary between work and private lives. Some common forms of private messaging today include Facebook messaging (sometimes referred to as "inboxing"), Twitter direct messaging, and Instagram direct messaging. These forms of private messaging provide a private space on a usually public site. For instance, most activity on Twitter is public, but Twitter DMs provide a private space for communication between two users. This differs from mediums like email, texting, and Snapchat, where most or all activity is always private. Modern forms of private messaging may include multimedia messages, such as pictures or videos. == History == Email was first developed to send messages between different computers on ARPANET in 1971. Access to ARPANET was primarily limited to universities and other research institutions. Starting in 1983 or 1984, FidoNet allowed home computer users to send and receive email via bulletin board systems. Information services such as CompuServe, America Online, and Prodigy also helped to popularizes online messaging. The advent of the public World Wide Web in 1993 increased access to email via internet service providers, and later via webmail. Instant messaging systems became popular in the mid 1990s, as Internet access improved and personal computers became more common. The introduction of Skype in 2003 popularized Internet-based voice and video messaging. Direct messaging is now a feature of all major social networking services. == Privacy concerns == In January 2014, Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook for breaching the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. They alleged that private messages which contained URLs were being read and used to generate profit, through data mining and user profiling, and that it was misleading for Facebook to refer to the functionality as "private" with the implication that the communication was "free from surveillance". In 2012, some Facebook users misinterpreted a redesign of the Facebook wall as publicly sharing private messages from 2008–2009. These were found to be public wall posts from those years, made at a time when it was not possible to like or comment on a wall post, making the notes look like private messages.

  Read more →
• 

  Teamwork (project management)

  Teamwork.com is an Irish, privately owned, web-based software company headquartered in Cork, Ireland. Teamwork creates task management and team collaboration software. Founded in 2007, as of 2016 the company stated that its software was in use by over 370,000 organisations worldwide (including Disney, Spotify and HP), and that it had over 2.4m users. == History == Peter Coppinger and Dan Mackey founded a company, Digital Crew, in 2007. This company built websites, intranets and custom web-based solutions for clients in Cork, Ireland. Frustrated by whiteboards and software management tools, Coppinger wanted a software system that would help manage client projects and which would be easy to use and generic enough to be used by different types of companies. Originally 37signals Basecamp users themselves, Coppinger and Mackey were frustrated by the limited feature set, and by Basecamp's apparent inaction on their feedback. In October 2007, Coppinger and Mackey launched Teamwork Project Manager, nicknamed TeamworkPM. In March 2015, this was renamed as Teamwork Projects. In 2014, after two years of negotiations, TeamworkPM bought the domain name 'Teamwork.com' for US$675,000 (€500,000). At the time this was one of the most expensive domain name purchases by an Irish company, and involved the transfer of a domain name which had been dormant since it was first acquired by the original owner in 1999. In 2015, Teamwork.com was named by Gartner to be one of their "Cool Vendors" in the Program and Portfolio Management Category. This was followed by the launch of a new real-time messaging product, Teamwork Chat, in January 2015. In June 2015, the company announced a drive to recruit for 40 positions by the end of the year. This was followed by the announcement that the company was investing more than €1 million in a new office, and had leased office space in Park House, Blackpool. In June 2016, Teamwork.com undertook a further recruitment drive to entice developers to Cork. In July 2021, the company announced that it had raised an investment of $70 million (€59.1 million) from venture capital firm Bregal Milestone to fund further growth. == Products == Teamwork markets a number of cloud-based applications, including Teamwork, Teamwork Desk, Teamwork Spaces, Teamwork CRM and Teamwork Chat. Teamwork was launched on 4 October 2007, at which time it had time management, milestone management, file sharing, time tracking, and messaging features. Teamwork's platform reportedly integrates with martech software like HubSpot, as well as other productivity tools like Slack, G Suite, MS Teams, Zapier, Dropbox and QuickBooks. == Awards == In 2016, Teamwork was awarded Cork's Best SME in the Cork Chamber of Commerce "Company of the Year" awards. In 2016, Teamwork was named number 7 in Deloitte's Fast 50 tech companies hit €1.6bn turnover. In 2015, Teamwork was identified as a Gartner "Cool Vendor" in the Program and Portfolio Management Category.

  Read more →
• 

  Social film

  A social film is a type of interactive film that is presented through the lens of social media. A social film is distributed digitally and integrates with a social networking service, such as Facebook or YouTube. It combines features of web video, social network games and social media. == Key elements == Social films are a more recent phenomenon, and, in turn, there are few precedents for their format. Although there are not many examples of this genre of film, the medium has certain identifiable elements: Casual entertainment Social media User-generated content Game mechanics Using just one of these factors or a combination of them, a social film engages viewers to interact directly with the work. This can be done through usual social media functionality like comments and ranking or adding directly to the narrative itself. Just as with memes, social film distribution relies on the viral spread enabled by social media. This is based on the viral expansion loops model, in which a viewer benefits from sharing the application with friends, exponentially creating new viewers compelled to share the application. == History == One of the first social films to be created was from the YouTube channel lonelygirl15. This social film started in 2006 and was created by Miles Beckett , Mesh Flinders, and Greg Goodfried. They used YouTube posts to create an interactive video series about a fictional character who showcased her life in a vlog format. As the videos went on, more bizarre things would keep happening to the main character, Bree, before she just stopped uploading. This channel was not only the first viral social film, but went on to be one of the first viral YouTube channels to be created. It did take a few years to see any more films in this genre, but 2011 saw many people start to try their hand at making these films. The first social film in this year was a film called Him, Her and Them which was produced and released by Murmur in April 2011. It was distributed exclusively through Facebook and promoted as the first “Facebook film.” The film is composed of short video clips and interactive slideshows, integrating Facebook's Social Graph API. Users participate via text-based additions to the story, which are viewable only by friends within their social network. In May 2011, Canon and Ron Howard teamed up to create Project Imagin8ion, which was a photo contest where photographers submitted photos and the top 8 photos would be the inspiration for a short film. This short film was called "When You Find Me" and could be found exclusively on YouTube. In July 2011, Intel and Toshiba partnered together to create Hollywood's first Social Film experience, a thriller called Inside, directed by D.J. Caruso and starring Emmy Rossum. The project is broken up into several segments across multiple social media platforms including Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. In this instance, the audience is challenged to help Emmy Rossum's character, Christina, safely make it out of the room she's been trapped in. This particular form of social film is a major undertaking in that it combines social media activity with A-list acting talent to create a user experience that all happens in real time. Although not quite the same idea, Hollywood also started experimenting with the idea of interactive and crowd-sourced films. One of the first examples of this was a short film called "Life In A Day" directed by Kevin Macdonald and produced by Ridley Scott. Kevin asked people from all over the world to submit videos onto YouTube of what they were doing on July 24th, 2010. They combined all of the best videos that were submitted together to create one film of people doing different things all around the world, no matter how boring or simple those things seemed. They took this short to film festivals before releasing it to the public on YouTube in 2011. In August 2012, Intel and Toshiba partnered again to create The Beauty Inside, directed by Drake Doremus, starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Topher Grace. It's Hollywood's first social film that gives everyone in the audience a chance to play Alex, the lead role. The experience will be broken up into six filmed episodes interspersed with real-time interactive storytelling that all takes place on Alex's Facebook timeline. In August 2013, Intel and Toshiba released their third entry into the category, The Power Inside, directed by Will Speck and Josh Gordon and starring Harvey Keitel, Analeigh Tipton, and Craig Roberts. It's Hollywood's first social film that asks the audience to audition to help save or destroy the world. The experience is broken up into six filmed episodes interspersed with user-generated content and interactive storytelling on the main character's Facebook timeline. In 2015, Intel partnered with Dell for their fourth entry, What Lives Inside directed by Robert Stromberg and starring Colin Hanks, Catherine O'Hara, and J. K. Simmons. The first of four episodes was released on Hulu on March 25, 2015.

  Read more →
• 

  Story (social media)

  In social media, a story is a function in which the user tells a narrative or provides status messages and information in the form of short, time-limited clips in an automatically running sequence. == Definition == A story is a short sequence of images, videos, or other social media content, which can be accompanied by backgrounds, music, text, stickers, animations, filters or emojis. Social media platforms typically advance through the sequence automatically when presenting a story to a viewer. Although the sequential nature of stories can be used to tell a narrative, the pieces of a story can also be unrelated. Social media platforms that offer stories will typically have a primary story for each user which consists of everything the user posted to their story over a certain period of time, usually the most recent 24 hours. Most stories cannot be changed afterwards and are only available for a short time. Stories are almost exclusively created on a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet computer and are usually displayed vertically. == History == In October 2013, Snapchat first introduced the story function as a series of Snaps that can together tell a narrative through a chronological order, with each Snap being viewable by all of the poster's friends and deleted after 24 hours. Stories soon surpassed private Snaps to become Snapchat's most-viewed type of post. After 2015, Snapchat introduced a feature allowing users to post private stories viewable by a chosen subset of their friends. Later other apps would copy this feature. In August 2016, Instagram introduced a stories function that deletes the content after 24 hours. Various commenters have accused the site of copying Snapchat. In February 2017, the instant messenger WhatsApp introduced the Now Status stories function in beta, which was later renamed Status. In March 2017, a story function was introduced in Facebook Messenger. In February 2018, Google launched AMP Stories, bringing a story-style format to certain Google search results on mobile devices. In August 2018, YouTube introduced a stories function that initially was limited to pictures, but was later expanded to support short video clips. The feature was shut down in June 2023. In August 2018, the GIF website Giphy introduced a story function. In March 2022, TikTok added a story feature which allowed users to create 15 second long videos that delete after 24 hours. In June 2023, Telegram CEO Pavel Durov announced stories for Telegram would be released in July 2023. In July 2023, the feature was released for premium users, and in August 2023 it was rolled out for all users. == User motivations == In 2022, a study performed by Jia-Dai (Evelyn) Lu and Jhih-Syuan (Elaine) Lin examined the various motivations for updating stories on Instagram. The researchers found a new configuration of motivations for using Instagram Stories: exploration, self-enhancement, perceived functionality, entertainment, social sharing, relationship building, novelty, and surveillance. The findings also highlighted that contribution and creation activities are likely to result in positive emotions, while creation alone predicts negative emotions while updating stories on Instagram. == Usage statistics == In 2019, around 1.5 billion people worldwide every day on average used the stories function in a social network or messenger. Younger people in particular use this function. More than 20% of people aged 18 to 24 use Instagram stories, while it is just under 2% of those over 55. In a Facebook survey of 18,000 participants from 12 countries, 68% said they used the stories function at least once a month. Stories in the areas of fashion and tourism are particularly popular. The website Fanpage Karma analyzed several Instagram accounts and determined the average reach of posts and stories per follower, concluding that posts have a higher reach than stories, which often have less than half the reach.

  Read more →
• 

  Social media mining

  Social media mining is the process of obtaining data from user-generated content on social media in order to extract actionable patterns, form conclusions about users, and act upon the information. Mining supports targeting advertising to users or academic research. The term is an analogy to the process of mining for minerals. Mining companies sift through raw ore to find the valuable minerals; likewise, social media mining sifts through social media data in order to discern patterns and trends about matters such as social media usage, online behaviour, content sharing, connections between individuals, buying behaviour. These patterns and trends are of interest to companies, governments and not-for-profit organizations, as such organizations can use the analyses for tasks such as design strategies, introduce programs, products, processes or services. Social media mining uses concepts from computer science, data mining, machine learning, and statistics. Mining is based on social network analysis, network science, sociology, ethnography, optimization and mathematics. It attempts to formally represent, measure and model patterns from social media data. In the 2010s, major corporations, governments and not-for-profit organizations began mining to learn about customers, clients and others. Platforms such as Google, Facebook (partnered with Datalogix and BlueKai) conduct mining to target users with advertising. Scientists and machine learning researchers extract insights and design product features. Users may not understand how platforms use their data. Users tend to click through Terms of Use agreements without reading them, leading to ethical questions about whether platforms adequately protect users' privacy. During the 2016 United States presidential election, Facebook allowed Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm linked to the Trump campaign, to analyze the data of an estimated 87 million Facebook users to profile voters, creating controversy when this was revealed. == Background == As defined by Kaplan and Haenlein, social media is the "group of internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user-generated content." There are many categories of social media including, but not limited to, social networking (Facebook or LinkedIn), microblogging (Twitter), photo sharing (Flickr, Instagram, Photobucket, or Picasa), news aggregation (Google Reader, StumbleUpon, or Feedburner), video sharing (YouTube, MetaCafe), livecasting (Ustream or Twitch), virtual worlds (Kaneva), social gaming (World of Warcraft), social search (Google, Bing, or Ask.com), and instant messaging (Google Talk, Skype, or Yahoo! messenger). The first social media website was introduced by GeoCities in 1994. It enabled users to create their own homepages without having a sophisticated knowledge of HTML coding. The first social networking site, SixDegrees.com, was introduced in 1997. Since then, many other social media sites have been introduced, each providing service to millions of people. These individuals form a virtual world in which individuals (social atoms), entities (content, sites, etc.) and interactions (between individuals, between entities, between individuals and entities) coexist. Social norms and human behavior govern this virtual world. By understanding these social norms and models of human behavior and combining them with the observations and measurements of this virtual world, one can systematically analyze and mine social media. Social media mining is the process of representing, analyzing, and extracting meaningful patterns from data in social media, resulting from social interactions. It is an interdisciplinary field encompassing techniques from computer science, data mining, machine learning, social network analysis, network science, sociology, ethnography, statistics, optimization, and mathematics. Social media mining faces grand challenges such as the big data paradox, obtaining sufficient samples, the noise removal fallacy, and evaluation dilemma. Social media mining represents the virtual world of social media in a computable way, measures it, and designs models that can help us understand its interactions. In addition, social media mining provides necessary tools to mine this world for interesting patterns, analyze information diffusion, study influence and homophily, provide effective recommendations, and analyze novel social behavior in social media. == Uses == Social media mining is used across several industries including business development, social science research, health services, and educational purposes. Once the data received goes through social media analytics, it can then be applied to these various fields. Often, companies use the patterns of connectivity that pervade social networks, such as assortativity—the social similarity between users that are induced by influence, homophily, and reciprocity and transitivity. These forces are then measured via statistical analysis of the nodes and connections between these nodes. Social analytics also uses sentiment analysis, because social media users often relay positive or negative sentiment in their posts. This provides important social information about users' emotions on specific topics. These three patterns have several uses beyond pure analysis. For example, influence can be used to determine the most influential user in a particular network. Companies would be interested in this information in order to decide who they may hire for influencer marketing. These influencers are determined by recognition, activity generation, and novelty—three requirements that can be measured through the data mined from these sites. Analysts also value measures of homophily: the tendency of two similar individuals to become friends. Users have begun to rely on information of other users' opinions in order to understand diverse subject matter. These analyses can also help create recommendations for individuals in a tailored capacity. By measuring influence and homophily, online and offline companies are able to suggest specific products for individuals consumers, and groups of consumers. Social media networks can use this information themselves to suggest to their users possible friends to add, pages to follow, and accounts to interact with. == Perception == Modern social media mining is a controversial practice that has led to exponential gains in user growth for tech giants such as Facebook, Inc., Twitter, and Google. Companies such as these, considered "Big Tech" are companies that build algorithms that take advantage of user input to understand their preferences, and keep them on the platform as much as possible. These inputs, that can be as simple as time spent on a given screen, provide the data being mined, and lead to companies profiting heavily from using that data to capitalize on extremely accurate predictions about user behavior. The growth of platforms accelerated rapidly once these strategies were put in place; Most of the largest platforms now average over 1 billion active users per month as of 2021. It has been claimed by a multitude of anti-algorithm personalities, like Tristan Harris or Chamath Palihapitiya, that certain companies (specifically Facebook) valued growth above all else, and ignored potential negative impacts from these growth engineering tactics. At the same time, users have now created their own data arbitrages with the help of their own data, through content monetization and becoming influencers. Users typically have access to a varied set of analytics specific to people that interact with them on social media, and can use these as building blocks for their own targeting and growth strategies through ads and posts that cater to their audiences. Influencers also commonly promote products and services for established brands, creating one of the largest digital industries: Influencer marketing. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, and others have long given access to platform analytics, and allowed third parties to access that information as well, at times unbeknownst to even the user whose data is being viewed/bought. == Research == === Research areas === Social media event detection – Social networks enable users to freely communicate with each other and share their recent news, ongoing activities or views about different topics. As a result, they can be seen as a potentially viable source of information to understand the current emerging topics/events. Public health monitoring and surveillance - Using large-scale analysis of social media to study large cohorts of patients and the general public, e.g. to obtain early warning signals of drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions, or understand human reproduction and sexual interest. Community structure (Community Detection/Evolution/Evaluation) – Identifying communities on social networks, how t

  Read more →
• 

  Voice search

  Voice search, also called voice-enabled search, allows the user to use a voice to search the Internet, a website, or an app. In a broader definition, voice search includes open-domain keyword query on any information on the Internet, for example in Google Voice Search, Cortana, Siri and Amazon Echo. Voice search is often interactive, involving several rounds of interaction that allows a system to ask for clarification. Voice search is a type of dialog system. Voice search is not a replacement for typed search. Rather the search terms, experience and use cases can differ heavily depending on the input type. == Supported language == Language is the most essential factor for a system to understand, and provide the most accurate results of what the user searches. This covers across languages, dialects, and accents, as users want a voice assistant that both understands them and speaks to them understandably. While spoken and written languages differ, voice search should support natural spoken language instead of only transforming voice into text and doing a regular text search with the help speech recognition. For example, in typed search an eCommerce user can easily copy and paste an alphanumeric product code to search field, but when speaking the search terms can be very different, such as "show me the new Bluetooth headphones by Samsung". == How it works == The difference between text and voice search is not only the input type. The mechanism must include an automatic speech recognition (ASR) for input, but it can also include natural language understanding for natural spoken search queries such as "What's the population for the United States" It can include text-to-speech (TTS) or a regular display for output modalities. Users might sometimes be required to activate the search by using a wake word. Then, the search system will detect the language spoken by the user. It will then detect the keywords and context of the sentence. Lastly, the device will return results depending on its output. A device with a screen might display the results, while a device without a screen will speak them back to the searcher.

  Read more →
• 

  Localhost

  In computer networking, localhost is a hostname that refers to the current computer used to access it. The name localhost is reserved for loopback purposes. It is used to access the network services that are running on the host via the loopback network interface. Using the loopback interface bypasses any local network interface hardware. == Loopback == The local loopback mechanism may be used to run a network service on a host without requiring a physical network interface, or without making the service accessible from the networks the computer may be connected to. For example, a locally installed website may be accessed from a Web browser by the URL http://localhost to display its home page. IPv4 network standards reserve the entire address block 127.0.0.0/8 (more than 16 million addresses) for loopback purposes. That means any packet sent to any of those addresses is looped back. The address 127.0.0.1 is the standard address for IPv4 loopback traffic; the rest are not supported by all operating systems. However, they can be used to set up multiple server applications on the host, all listening on the same port number. In the IPv6 addressing architecture there is only a single address assigned for loopback: ::1. The standard precludes the assignment of that address to any physical interface, as well as its use as the source or destination address in any packet sent to remote hosts. == Name resolution == The name localhost normally resolves to the IPv4 loopback address 127.0.0.1, and to the IPv6 loopback address ::1. This resolution is normally configured by the following lines in the operating system's hosts file: 127.0.0.1 localhost ::1 localhost The name may also be resolved by Domain Name System (DNS) servers, but there are special considerations governing the use of this name: An IPv4 or IPv6 address query for the name localhost must always resolve to the respective loopback address. Applications may resolve the name to a loopback address themselves, or pass it to the local name resolver mechanisms. When a name resolver receives an address (A or AAAA) query for localhost, it should return the appropriate loopback addresses, and negative responses for any other requested record types. Queries for localhost should not be sent to caching name servers. To avoid burdening the Domain Name System root servers with traffic, caching name servers should never request name server records for localhost, or forward resolution to authoritative name servers. When authoritative name servers receive queries for 'localhost' in spite of the provisions mentioned above, they should resolve them appropriately. In addition to the mapping of localhost to the loopback addresses (127.0.0.1 and ::1), localhost may also be mapped to other IPv4 (loopback) addresses and it is also possible to assign other, or additional, names to any loopback address. The mapping of localhost to addresses other than the designated loopback address range in the hosts file or in DNS is not guaranteed to have the desired effect, as applications may map the name internally. In the Domain Name System, the name .localhost is reserved as a top-level domain name, originally set aside to avoid confusion with the hostname localhost. Domain name registrars are precluded from delegating domain names in the top-level .localhost domain. == Historical notes == In 1981, the block 127.0.0.0/8 got a 'reserved' status, as not to assign it as a general purpose class A IP network. This block was officially assigned for loopback purposes in 1986. Its purpose as a Special Use IPv4 Address block was confirmed in 1994,, 2002, 2010,, and last in 2013. From the outset, in 1995, the single IPv6 loopback address ::1 was defined. Its purpose and definition was unchanged in 1998,, 2003,, and up to the current definition, in 2006. == Packet processing == The processing of any packet sent to a loopback address, is implemented in the link layer of the TCP/IP stack. Such packets are never passed to any network interface controller (NIC) or hardware device driver and must not appear outside of a computing system, or be routed by any router. This permits software testing and local services, even in the absence of any hardware network interfaces. Looped-back packets are distinguished from any other packets traversing the TCP/IP stack only by the special IP address they were addressed to. Thus, the services that ultimately receive them respond according to the specified destination. For example, an HTTP service could route packets addressed to 127.0.0.99:80 and 127.0.0.100:80 to different Web servers, or to a single server that returns different web pages. To simplify such testing, the hosts file may be configured to provide appropriate names for each address. Packets received on a non-loopback interface with a loopback source or destination address must be dropped. Such packets are sometimes referred to as Martian packets. As with any other bogus packets, they may be malicious and any problems they might cause can be avoided by applying bogon filtering. == Special cases == The releases of the MySQL database differentiate between the use of the hostname localhost and the use of the addresses 127.0.0.1 and ::1. When using localhost as the destination in a client connector interface of an application, the MySQL application programming interface connects to the database using a Unix domain socket, while a TCP connection via the loopback interface requires the direct use of the explicit address. One notable exception to the use of the 127.0.0.0/8 addresses is their use in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traceroute error detection, in which their property of not being routable provides a convenient means to avoid delivery of faulty packets to end users.

  Read more →
• 

  Data validation and reconciliation

  Industrial process data validation and reconciliation, or more briefly, process data reconciliation (PDR), is a technology that uses process information and mathematical methods in order to automatically ensure data validation and reconciliation by correcting measurements in industrial processes. The use of PDR allows for extracting accurate and reliable information about the state of industry processes from raw measurement data and produces a single consistent set of data representing the most likely process operation. == Models, data and measurement errors == Industrial processes, for example chemical or thermodynamic processes in chemical plants, refineries, oil or gas production sites, or power plants, are often represented by two fundamental means: Models that express the general structure of the processes, Data that reflects the state of the processes at a given point in time. Models can have different levels of detail, for example one can incorporate simple mass or compound conservation balances, or more advanced thermodynamic models including energy conservation laws. Mathematically the model can be expressed by a nonlinear system of equations F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,} in the variables y = ( y 1 , … , y n ) {\displaystyle y=(y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n})} , which incorporates all the above-mentioned system constraints (for example the mass or heat balances around a unit). A variable could be the temperature or the pressure at a certain place in the plant. === Error types === Data originates typically from measurements taken at different places throughout the industrial site, for example temperature, pressure, volumetric flow rate measurements etc. To understand the basic principles of PDR, it is important to first recognize that plant measurements are never 100% correct, i.e. raw measurement y {\displaystyle y\,} is not a solution of the nonlinear system F ( y ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(y)=0\,\!} . When using measurements without correction to generate plant balances, it is common to have incoherencies. Measurement errors can be categorized into two basic types: random errors due to intrinsic sensor accuracy and systematic errors (or gross errors) due to sensor calibration or faulty data transmission. Random errors means that the measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} is a random variable with mean y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} , where y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,\!} is the true value that is typically not known. A systematic error on the other hand is characterized by a measurement y {\displaystyle y\,\!} which is a random variable with mean y ¯ {\displaystyle {\bar {y}}\,\!} , which is not equal to the true value y ∗ {\displaystyle y^{}\,} . For ease in deriving and implementing an optimal estimation solution, and based on arguments that errors are the sum of many factors (so that the Central limit theorem has some effect), data reconciliation assumes these errors are normally distributed. Other sources of errors when calculating plant balances include process faults such as leaks, unmodeled heat losses, incorrect physical properties or other physical parameters used in equations, and incorrect structure such as unmodeled bypass lines. Other errors include unmodeled plant dynamics such as holdup changes, and other instabilities in plant operations that violate steady state (algebraic) models. Additional dynamic errors arise when measurements and samples are not taken at the same time, especially lab analyses. The normal practice of using time averages for the data input partly reduces the dynamic problems. However, that does not completely resolve timing inconsistencies for infrequently-sampled data like lab analyses. This use of average values, like a moving average, acts as a low-pass filter, so high frequency noise is mostly eliminated. The result is that, in practice, data reconciliation is mainly making adjustments to correct systematic errors like biases. === Necessity of removing measurement errors === ISA-95 is the international standard for the integration of enterprise and control systems It asserts that: Data reconciliation is a serious issue for enterprise-control integration. The data have to be valid to be useful for the enterprise system. The data must often be determined from physical measurements that have associated error factors. This must usually be converted into exact values for the enterprise system. This conversion may require manual, or intelligent reconciliation of the converted values [...]. Systems must be set up to ensure that accurate data are sent to production and from production. Inadvertent operator or clerical errors may result in too much production, too little production, the wrong production, incorrect inventory, or missing inventory. == History == PDR has become more and more important due to industrial processes that are becoming more and more complex. PDR started in the early 1960s with applications aiming at closing material balances in production processes where raw measurements were available for all variables. At the same time the problem of gross error identification and elimination has been presented. In the late 1960s and 1970s unmeasured variables were taken into account in the data reconciliation process., PDR also became more mature by considering general nonlinear equation systems coming from thermodynamic models., , Quasi steady state dynamics for filtering and simultaneous parameter estimation over time were introduced in 1977 by Stanley and Mah. Dynamic PDR was formulated as a nonlinear optimization problem by Liebman et al. in 1992. == Data reconciliation == Data reconciliation is a technique that targets at correcting measurement errors that are due to measurement noise, i.e. random errors. From a statistical point of view the main assumption is that no systematic errors exist in the set of measurements, since they may bias the reconciliation results and reduce the robustness of the reconciliation. Given n {\displaystyle n} measurements y i {\displaystyle y_{i}} , data reconciliation can mathematically be expressed as an optimization problem of the following form: min x , y ∗ ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 subject to F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 y min ≤ y ∗ ≤ y max x min ≤ x ≤ x max , {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\min _{x,y^{}}&\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\\{\text{subject to }}&F(x,y^{})=0\\&y_{\min }\leq y^{}\leq y_{\max }\\&x_{\min }\leq x\leq x_{\max },\end{aligned}}\,\!} where y i ∗ {\displaystyle y_{i}^{}\,\!} is the reconciled value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), y i {\displaystyle y_{i}\,\!} is the measured value of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), x j {\displaystyle x_{j}\,\!} is the j {\displaystyle j} -th unmeasured variable ( j = 1 , … , m {\displaystyle j=1,\ldots ,m\,\!} ), and σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}\,\!} is the standard deviation of the i {\displaystyle i} -th measurement ( i = 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=1,\ldots ,n\,\!} ), F ( x , y ∗ ) = 0 {\displaystyle F(x,y^{})=0\,\!} are the p {\displaystyle p\,\!} process equality constraints and x min , x max , y min , y max {\displaystyle x_{\min },x_{\max },y_{\min },y_{\max }\,\!} are the bounds on the measured and unmeasured variables. The term ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle \left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}\,\!} is called the penalty of measurement i. The objective function is the sum of the penalties, which will be denoted in the following by f ( y ∗ ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i ∗ − y i σ i ) 2 {\displaystyle f(y^{})=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left({\frac {y_{i}^{}-y_{i}}{\sigma _{i}}}\right)^{2}} . In other words, one wants to minimize the overall correction (measured in the least squares term) that is needed in order to satisfy the system constraints. Additionally, each least squares term is weighted by the standard deviation of the corresponding measurement. The standard deviation is related to the accuracy of the measurement. For example, at a 95% confidence level, the standard deviation is about half the accuracy. === Redundancy === Data reconciliation relies strongly on the concept of redundancy to correct the measurements as little as possible in order to satisfy the process constraints. Here, redundancy is defined differently from redundancy in information theory. Instead, redundancy arises from combining sensor data with the model (algebraic constraints), sometimes more specifically called "spatial redundancy", "analytical redundancy", or "topological redundancy". Redundancy can be due to sensor redundancy, where sensors are duplicated in order to have more than one measurement of the same quantity. Redundancy also arises when a single variable can be estimated in several independent ways from separate sets of measurements at a given time or time averaging period, using the algebraic constraints. Redundancy is linked to the concept

  Read more →