Inbenta is an AI company that originated in Barcelona, Spain, in 2005. Inbenta is currently headquartered in Allen, Texas, with additional offices in Spain, São Paulo, Brazil, Toulouse, France, and Tokyo, Japan. Inbenta provides natural language processing and semantic search through artificial intelligence. == History == Inbenta raised $12 Million in their Series B funding round to extend the reach of their artificial intelligence for business solutions. In 2023 Inbenta's new chief executive officer Melissa Solis moved Inbenta's headquarters to One Bethany West in Allen, Texas from Foster City, California. == Controversy == On 23 June 2018, Ticketmaster UK identified malicious software on a customer support product hosted by Inbenta Technologies, compromising personal data and payment details for thousands of Ticketmaster customers. Three days later, Inbenta's CEO Issued a message about the incident to convey the full scope of the breach. Also on its FAQ section, Inbenta claimed that "After a careful analysis of all clues and snapshots from our systems, the technical team at Inbenta discovered that the script had been implemented on the payment page. We were unaware of this, and would have advised against doing so had we known, as it presents a point of vulnerability". On November 13, 2020, the Information Commissioner's Office fined Ticketmaster UK Limited £1.25 million for failing to protect customers' payment details. According to the ICO, "It was because of Ticketmaster's business decision to include the [Inbenta] chat bot on its payment page that the chat bot was able to unlawfully process the personal data of customers."
Client honeypot
Honeypots are security devices whose value lie in being probed and compromised. Traditional honeypots are servers (or devices that expose server services) that wait passively to be attacked. Client Honeypots are active security devices in search of malicious servers that attack clients. The client honeypot poses as a client and interacts with the server to examine whether an attack has occurred. Often the focus of client honeypots is on web browsers, but any client that interacts with servers can be part of a client honeypot (for example ftp, email, ssh, etc.). There are several terms that are used to describe client honeypots. Besides client honeypot, which is the generic classification, honeyclient is the other term that is generally used and accepted. However, there is a subtlety here, as "honeyclient" is actually a homograph that could also refer to the first known open source client honeypot implementation (see below), although this should be clear from the context. == Architecture == A client honeypot is composed of three components. The first component, a queuer, is responsible for creating a list of servers for the client to visit. This list can be created, for example, through crawling. The second component is the client itself, which is able to make a requests to servers identified by the queuer. After the interaction with the server has taken place, the third component, an analysis engine, is responsible for determining whether an attack has taken place on the client honeypot. In addition to these components, client honeypots are usually equipped with some sort of containment strategy to prevent successful attacks from spreading beyond the client honeypot. This is usually achieved through the use of firewalls and virtual machine sandboxes. Analogous to traditional server honeypots, client honeypots are mainly classified by their interaction level: high or low; which denotes the level of functional interaction the server can utilize on the client honeypot. In addition to this there are also newly hybrid approaches which denotes the usage of both high and low interaction detection techniques. == High interaction == High interaction client honeypots are fully functional systems comparable to real systems with real clients. As such, no functional limitations (besides the containment strategy) exist on high interaction client honeypots. Attacks on high interaction client honeypots are detected via inspection of the state of the system after a server has been interacted with. The detection of changes to the client honeypot may indicate the occurrence of an attack against that has exploited a vulnerability of the client. An example of such a change is the presence of a new or altered file. High interaction client honeypots are very effective at detecting unknown attacks on clients. However, the tradeoff for this accuracy is a performance hit from the amount of system state that has to be monitored to make an attack assessment. Also, this detection mechanism is prone to various forms of evasion by the exploit. For example, an attack could delay the exploit from immediately triggering (time bombs) or could trigger upon a particular set of conditions or actions (logic bombs). Since no immediate, detectable state change occurred, the client honeypot is likely to incorrectly classify the server as safe even though it did successfully perform its attack on the client. Finally, if the client honeypots are running in virtual machines, then an exploit may try to detect the presence of the virtual environment and cease from triggering or behave differently. === Capture-HPC === Capture [1] is a high interaction client honeypot developed by researchers at Victoria University of Wellington, NZ. Capture differs from existing client honeypots in various ways. First, it is designed to be fast. State changes are being detected using an event based model allowing to react to state changes as they occur. Second, Capture is designed to be scalable. A central Capture server is able to control numerous clients across a network. Third, Capture is supposed to be a framework that allows to utilize different clients. The initial version of Capture supports Internet Explorer, but the current version supports all major browsers (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari) as well as other HTTP aware client applications, such as office applications and media players. === HoneyClient === HoneyClient [2] is a web browser based (IE/FireFox) high interaction client honeypot designed by Kathy Wang in 2004 and subsequently developed at MITRE. It was the first open source client honeypot and is a mix of Perl, C++, and Ruby. HoneyClient is state-based and detects attacks on Windows clients by monitoring files, process events, and registry entries. It has integrated the Capture-HPC real-time integrity checker to perform this detection. HoneyClient also contains a crawler, so it can be seeded with a list of initial URLs from which to start and can then continue to traverse web sites in search of client-side malware. === HoneyMonkey (dead since 2010) === HoneyMonkey [3] is a web browser based (IE) high interaction client honeypot implemented by Microsoft in 2005. It is not available for download. HoneyMonkey is state based and detects attacks on clients by monitoring files, registry, and processes. A unique characteristic of HoneyMonkey is its layered approach to interacting with servers in order to identify zero-day exploits. HoneyMonkey initially crawls the web with a vulnerable configuration. Once an attack has been identified, the server is reexamined with a fully patched configuration. If the attack is still detected, one can conclude that the attack utilizes an exploit for which no patch has been publicly released yet and therefore is quite dangerous. === SHELIA (dead since 2009) === Shelia [4] is a high interaction client honeypot developed by Joan Robert Rocaspana at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. It integrates with an email reader and processes each email it receives (URLs & attachments). Depending on the type of URL or attachment received, it opens a different client application (e.g. browser, office application, etc.) It monitors whether executable instructions are executed in data area of memory (which would indicate a buffer overflow exploit has been triggered). With such an approach, SHELIA is not only able to detect exploits, but is able to actually ward off exploits from triggering. === UW Spycrawler === The Spycrawler [5] developed at the University of Washington is yet another browser based (Mozilla) high interaction client honeypot developed by Moshchuk et al. in 2005. This client honeypot is not available for download. The Spycrawler is state based and detects attacks on clients by monitoring files, processes, registry, and browser crashes. Spycrawlers detection mechanism is event based. Further, it increases the passage of time of the virtual machine the Spycrawler is operating in to overcome (or rather reduce the impact of) time bombs. === Web Exploit Finder === WEF [6] is an implementation of an automatic drive-by-download – detection in a virtualized environment, developed by Thomas Müller, Benjamin Mack and Mehmet Arziman, three students from the Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart during the summer term in 2006. WEF can be used as an active HoneyNet with a complete virtualization architecture underneath for rollbacks of compromised virtualized machines. == Low interaction == Low interaction client honeypots differ from high interaction client honeypots in that they do not utilize an entire real system, but rather use lightweight or simulated clients to interact with the server. (in the browser world, they are similar to web crawlers). Responses from servers are examined directly to assess whether an attack has taken place. This could be done, for example, by examining the response for the presence of malicious strings. Low interaction client honeypots are easier to deploy and operate than high interaction client honeypots and also perform better. However, they are likely to have a lower detection rate since attacks have to be known to the client honeypot in order for it to detect them; new attacks are likely to go unnoticed. They also suffer from the problem of evasion by exploits, which may be exacerbated due to their simplicity, thus making it easier for an exploit to detect the presence of the client honeypot. === HoneyC === HoneyC [7] is a low interaction client honeypot developed at Victoria University of Wellington by Christian Seifert in 2006. HoneyC is a platform independent open source framework written in Ruby. It currently concentrates driving a web browser simulator to interact with servers. Malicious servers are detected by statically examining the web server's response for malicious strings through the usage of Snort signatures. === Monkey-Spider (dead since 2008) === Monkey-Spider [8] is a low-interaction client honeypot i
Sense Networks
Sense Networks is a New York City based company with a focus on applications that analyze big data from mobile phones, carrier networks, and taxicabs, particularly by using machine learning technology to make sense of large amounts of location (latitude/longitude) data. In 2009, Sense was named one of "The 25 Most Intriguing Startups in the World" by Bloomberg Businessweek and was called "The Next Google" on the cover of Newsweek. In 2014, Sense Networks was acquired by YP, "the local search and advertising company owned by Cerberus Capital Management and AT&T." It was subsequently sold off to Verve in 2017 == History == Sense Networks was founded by Greg Skibiski in February 2006 (2003?) near his home in Northampton, Massachusetts. After establishing an office in NoHo, New York City near Silicon Alley, Skibiski recruited Alex Pentland, Director of Human Dynamics Research and former Academic Head of the MIT Media Lab, Tony Jebara, Associate Professor and Head of the Machine Learning Laboratory at Columbia University, and Christine Lemke, who would later become co-founders. Sense Networks investors include Intel Capital, Javelin Venture Partners, and Kenan Altunis. Founder Greg Skibiski was pushed out by lead investor Intel Capital in November 2009 following the company's B round of financing. During the same week, the company won the Emerging Communications Conference "Company to Watch" Award. The company has three published patent applications for analyzing sensor data streams: System and Method of Performing Location Analytics (US 20090307263), Comparing Spatial-Temporal Trails in Location Analytics (US 20100079336), and Anomaly Detection in Sensor Analytics (US 20100082301). The company was acquired by the Yellow Pages in 2014. This is a marketing conglomerate under AT&T and Cerberus Capital Management. == Products and services == The Citysense consumer application that shows hotspots of human activity in real-time from mobile phone location and taxicab GPS data was named by ReadWriteWeb (in The New York Times) as "Top 10 Internet of Things Products of 2009". The Cabsense consumer application that shows the best place to catch a New York City taxicab based on GPS data from the vehicle was launched in March 2010. The Macrosense platform is for mobile application providers and mobile phone carriers to analyze billions of customer location data points for predictive analytics in advertising and churn management applications. == Privacy and data ownership == The company allows users to opt-out of their service through their website, and users may monitor their profile through their application. The company does not collect identifiable data (such as phone numbers or names); it collects data received from cellphone to construct anonymous profiles of consumers. This anonymous data/profiles may then be sold to third parties. The company's privacy and data ownership policies are based on The New Deal on Data, as advocated by Alex "Sandy" Pentland, head of the Human Dynamics group at MIT.
OpenAI Operator
OpenAI Operator was an AI agent developed by OpenAI, capable of autonomously performing tasks through web browser interactions, including filling forms, placing online orders, scheduling appointments, and other repetitive browser-based tasks. It uses OpenAI's advanced models to expand practical automation capabilities for users in daily activities. Operator was launched on January 23, 2025. It was released as a limited-access research preview to ChatGPT Pro-tier subscribers in the United States on February 1, 2025, with future plans to broaden availability. Operator was deprecated after the release of ChatGPT agent, and shut down on August 31, 2025. == Performance and limitations == In benchmark assessments, Operator achieved notable success, scoring 38.1% on OSWorld benchmarks (OS-level tasks) and 58.1% on WebArena benchmarks (web interactions). However, it did not reach human-level accuracy and faced limitations with intricate user interfaces and extended workflows. == Safety and privacy == OpenAI emphasized privacy and safety measures within Operator, including stringent data protection protocols and built-in safety checks designed to prevent unauthorized sensitive actions or information misuse. == Availability == Initially, Operator was only available to ChatGPT Pro subscribers in the U.S., with plans for broader availability to Plus, Team, and Enterprise users in the future.
Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act
The Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, also referred to as SB-53, is a 2025 California law which mandates increased transparency for companies building artificial intelligence. SB-53 is primarily focused on assessing and reducing potential catastrophic risks from AI, and is the first bill addressing such risks to be passed into law in America. The bill requires companies to create publicly accessible documents assessing potential "catastrophic risk[s]" from their AI models, as well as publishing documentation on how the model incorporates national and international safety standards. SB-53 also sets up whistleblower protections and procedures for alerting the government to a "critical safety incident". == History == SB-53 was preceded in 2024 by the unsuccessful Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act ("SB-1047"), a proposed bill authored by Senator Scott Wiener which was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Afterwords, Newsom created a "Joint California AI Policy Working Group" to provide recommendations for AI regulation, which guided the drafting of SB-53. Senator Scott Wiener introduced the bill on January 7, 2025, and after a series of amendments, SB-53 passed the Senate 29-8 on September 13. Governor Gavin Newsom approved the bill on September 25, passing it into law. == Provisions == SB-53 applies primarily to companies making at least $500 million in yearly gross revenue. It defines a “frontier model” as any AI trained with over 1026 FLOPS (including fine-tuning), including unreleased internal models. Both the financial and computational thresholds must be met before most of the law is applied, although the threshold can be lowered or otherwise updated by the California Department of Technology in an annual review starting in 2027. Most of the bill's provisions are focused on "catastrophic risks" from AI, which are defined as incidents in which a model contributes to more than 50 deaths or serious injuries, or causes more than one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in economic damage from AI-assisted acts (such as cyberattacks or the creation of biological weapons). The bill requires companies to provide publicly accessible safety frameworks for frontier AI models, describing how the company tests for catastrophic risk from its AI, and how it implements protections against such risks. This includes addressing the possibility that the AI may attempt to circumvent internal guardrails or oversight mechanisms. (Certain safety incidents, such as dangerously deceptive model behavior, physical injury, or death, must be reported to California Office of Emergency Services (OES) within 15 days, unless the incident poses imminent physical risk, in which case it must be reported immediately.) The company must follow its published framework, and if any changes are made, the framework should be updated within 30 days, and justification for said changes must also be made public. Additionally, all frontier companies are required to publish basic information about newly released frontier models (such as terms of service, supported languages, and intended use), although only large companies (making over $500 million annually) need to publish full safety frameworks. SB-53 also establishes various whistleblower protections for covered employees. Large companies must have anonymous whistleblowing channels in place which protect employees from retaliation from reporting risks to state or federal authorities if they have reasonable cause to believe that their employer is substantially risking public health and safety.
Synonym (database)
In databases, a synonym is an alias or alternate name for a table, view, sequence, or other schema object. They are used mainly to make it intuitive for users to access database objects owned by other users. They also hide the underlying object's identity and make it harder for a malicious program or user to target the underlying object (security through obscurity). Because a synonym is just an alternate name for an object, it requires no storage other than its definition. When an application uses a synonym, the DBMS forwards the request to the synonym's underlying base object. By coding your programs to use synonyms instead of database object names, you insulate yourself from any changes in the name, ownership, or object locations, at the cost of adding another layer that also needs to be maintained. Users can also have different needs, for example some may wish to use a shorter name to refer to database objects they often query, which can be done with aliases without having to rename the underlying object and alter the code referring to it. Synonyms are very powerful from the point of view of allowing users access to objects that do not lie within their schema. All synonyms have to be created explicitly with the CREATE SYNONYM command and the underlying objects can be located in the same database or in other databases that are connected by database links There are two major uses of synonyms: Object invisibility: Synonyms can be created to keep the original object hidden from the user. Location invisibility: Synonyms can be created as aliases for tables and other objects that are not part of the local database. When a table or a procedure is created, it is created in a particular schema, and other users can access it only by using that schema's name as a prefix to the object's name. The way around for this is for the schema owner creates a synonym with the same name as the table name. == Public synonyms == Public synonyms are owned by special schema in the Oracle Database called PUBLIC. As mentioned earlier, public synonyms can be referenced by all users in the database. Public synonyms are usually created by the application owner for the tables and other objects such as procedures and packages so the users of the application can see the objects The following code shows how to create a public synonym for the employee table: Now any user can see the table by just typing the original table name. If you wish, you could provide a different table name for that table in the CREATE SYNONYM statement. Remember that the DBA must create public synonyms. Just because you can see a table through public (or private) synonym doesn’t mean that you can also perform SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE operations on the table. To be able to perform those operations, a user needs specific privileges for the underlying object, either directly or through roles from the application owner. == Private synonyms == A private synonym is a synonym within a database schema that a developer typically uses to mask the true name of a table, view stored procedure, or other database object in an application schema. Private synonyms, unlike public synonyms, can be referenced only by the schema that owns the table or object. You may want to create private synonyms when you want to refer to the same table by different contexts. Private synonym overrides public synonym definitions. You create private synonyms the same way you create public synonyms, but you omit the PUBLIC keyword in the CREATE statement. The following example shows how to create a private synonym called addresses for the locations table. Note that once you create the private synonym, you can refer to the synonym exactly as you would the original table name. == Drop a synonym == Synonyms, both private and public, are dropped in the same manner by using the DROP SYNONYM command, but there is one important difference. If you are dropping a public synonym; you need to add the keyword PUBLIC after the keyword DROP. The ALL_SYNONYMS (or DBA_SYNONYMS) view provides information on all synonyms in your database.
Turing test
The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1949, is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to that of a human. In the test, a human evaluator judges a text transcript of a natural-language conversation between a human and a machine. The evaluator tries to identify the machine, and the machine passes if the evaluator cannot reliably tell them apart. The results would not depend on the machine's ability to answer questions correctly, only on how closely its answers resembled those of a human. Since the Turing test is a test of indistinguishability in performance capacity, the verbal version generalizes naturally to all of human performance capacity, verbal as well as nonverbal (robotic). The test was introduced by Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" while working at the University of Manchester. It opens with the words: "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'." Because "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". Turing describes the new form of the problem in terms of a three-person party game called the "imitation game", in which an interrogator asks questions of a man and a woman in another room in order to determine the correct sex of the two players. Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?" This question, Turing believed, was one that could actually be answered. In the remainder of the paper, he argued against the major objections to the proposition that "machines can think". Since Turing introduced his test, it has been highly influential in the philosophy of artificial intelligence, resulting in substantial discussion and controversy, as well as criticism from philosophers like John Searle, who argue against the test's ability to detect consciousness. == History == === Philosophical background === The question of whether it is possible for machines to think has a long history, which is firmly entrenched in the distinction between dualist and materialist views of the mind. René Descartes prefigures aspects of the Turing test in his 1637 Discourse on the Method when he writes: [H]ow many different automata or moving machines could be made by the industry of man ... For we can easily understand a machine's being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do. Here Descartes notes that automata are capable of responding to human interactions but argues that such automata cannot respond appropriately to things said in their presence in the way that any human can. Descartes therefore prefigures the Turing test by defining the insufficiency of appropriate linguistic response as that which separates the human from the automaton. Descartes fails to consider the possibility that future automata might be able to overcome such insufficiency, and so does not propose the Turing test as such, even if he prefigures its conceptual framework and criterion. Denis Diderot formulates in his 1746 book Pensées philosophiques a Turing-test criterion, though with the important implicit limiting assumption maintained, of the participants being natural living beings, rather than considering created artifacts: If they find a parrot who could answer to everything, I would claim it to be an intelligent being without hesitation. This does not mean he agrees with this, but that it was already a common argument of materialists at that time. According to dualism, the mind is non-physical (or, at the very least, has non-physical properties) and, therefore, cannot be explained in purely physical terms. According to materialism, the mind can be explained physically, which leaves open the possibility of minds that are produced artificially. In 1936, philosopher Alfred Ayer considered the standard philosophical question of other minds: how do we know that other people have the same conscious experiences that we do? In his book, Language, Truth and Logic, Ayer suggested a protocol to distinguish between a conscious man and an unconscious machine: "The only ground I can have for asserting that an object which appears to be conscious is not really a conscious being, but only a dummy or a machine, is that it fails to satisfy one of the empirical tests by which the presence or absence of consciousness is determined". (This suggestion is very similar to the Turing test, but it is not certain that Ayer's popular philosophical classic was familiar to Turing.) In other words, a thing is not conscious if it fails the consciousness test. === Cultural background === A rudimentary idea of the Turing test appears in the 1726 novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. When Gulliver is brought before the king of Brobdingnag, the king thinks at first that Gulliver might be a "a piece of clock-work (which is in that country arrived to a very great perfection) contrived by some ingenious artist". Even when he hears Gulliver speaking, the king still doubts whether Gulliver was taught "a set of words" to make him "sell at a better price". Gulliver tells that only after "he put several other questions to me, and still received rational answers" the king became satisfied that Gulliver was not a machine. Tests where a human judges whether a computer or an alien is intelligent were an established convention in science fiction by the 1940s, and it is likely that Turing would have been aware of these. Stanley G. Weinbaum's "A Martian Odyssey" (1934) provides an example of how nuanced such tests could be. Earlier examples of machines or automatons attempting to pass as human include the Ancient Greek myth of Pygmalion who creates a sculpture of a woman that is animated by Aphrodite, Carlo Collodi's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio, about a puppet who wants to become a real boy, and E. T. A. Hoffmann's 1816 story "The Sandman," where the protagonist falls in love with an automaton. In all these examples, people are fooled by artificial beings that—up to a point—pass as human. === Alan Turing and the imitation game === Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. In Turing's report, "Intelligent Machinery," he investigated "the question of whether or not it is possible for machinery to show intelligent behaviour" and, as part of that investigation, proposed what may be considered the forerunner to his later tests: It is not difficult to devise a paper machine which will play a not very bad game of chess. Now get three men A, B and C as subjects for the experiment. A and C are to be rather poor chess players, B is the operator who works the paper machine. ... Two rooms are used with some arrangement for communicating moves, and a game is played between C and either A or the paper machine. C may find it quite difficult to tell which he is playing. "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" (1950) was the first published paper by Turing to focus exclusively on machine intelligence. Turing begins the 1950 paper with the claim, "I propose to consider the question 'Can machines think?'" As he highlights, the traditional approach to such a question is to start with definitions, defining both the terms "machine" and "think". Turing chooses not to do so; instead, he replaces the question with a new one, "which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words". In essence he proposes to change the question from "Can machines think?" to "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" The advantage of the new question, Turing argues, is that it draws "a fairly sharp line between the physical and intellectual capacities of a man". To demonstrate this approach Turing proposes a test inspired by a party game, known as the "imitation game", in which a man and a woman go into separate rooms and guests try to tell them apart by writing a series of questions and reading the typewritten answers sent back. In this game, both the man and the woman aim to convince the guests that they ar