Data rooms are secure spaces used for housing data, usually of a privileged or confidential nature. They can be physical data rooms, virtual data rooms (VDRs), or data centers. They are primarily used for a variety of corporate purposes, including data storage, document exchange, file sharing, financial transactions, and legal proceedings. Today, data rooms are central to workflows in mergers and acquisitions, venture capital, and corporate restructuring, increasingly utilizing artificial intelligence to securely manage and review large datasets. Historically, data rooms were strictly physical locations heavily guarded and monitored. Today, the vast majority of corporate data rooms are hosted virtually on secure cloud platforms, though physical rooms are still occasionally used for highly sensitive government or proprietary intelligence. == Physical Data Rooms == In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), the traditional data room genuinely consists of a physically secured and continually monitored room, normally in the vendor's offices or those of their legal counsel. Bidders and their advisers visit this room in order to inspect and report on various documents, legal contracts, and financial statements made available during the due diligence process. Historically, physical data rooms presented significant logistical challenges. Often, only one bidder at a time was allowed to enter to maintain document integrity and confidentiality. If new documents or new versions of documents were required, they had to be brought in by courier as hardcopies. Teams involved in large due diligence processes typically had to be flown in from many regions or countries and remain available throughout the process. Because these teams comprised a number of experts in different fields—such as legal counsel, forensic accountants, and industry specialists—the overall cost of keeping such groups on call near the physical data room was often extremely high. == Virtual Data Rooms (VDRs) == To address the costs and logistical bottlenecks of physical data rooms, virtual data rooms (VDRs) were developed to provide secure, online dissemination of confidential information. A VDR is essentially a secure cloud repository with strictly controlled access. Access is managed through secure log-ons supplied by the vendor or authority, which can be disabled at any time if a bidder withdraws from a transaction. Because much of the information released during corporate transactions is highly confidential, VDRs utilize digital rights management (DRM) to control information. Restrictions are applied to the viewers' ability to release data to third parties by disabling forwarding, copying, or printing capabilities. Modern VDRs also employ dynamic watermarking and detailed auditing capabilities. Detailed auditing is required for legal reasons so that a precise digital footprint is kept of who has viewed which version of each document, and for how long. Furthermore, modern VDR platforms are typically built to comply with stringent information security standards such as ISO 27001 and SOC 2. Transitioning from sequential physical data rooms to parallel virtual data rooms has been shown to significantly reduce the duration of M&A transactions while allowing sellers to field multiple bidders simultaneously. == Key Applications == Data rooms are commonly used by legal, accounting, investment banking, and private equity firms. Primary applications include: Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A): VDRs are central to the sell-side M&A process. After potential buyers sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) and review a Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM), they are granted data room access to perform deep financial due diligence, such as Quality of Earnings (QoE) analysis and legal liability assessments. Venture Capital and Startups: Startups use data rooms as a centralized location for key operational data, capitalization tables, and financial projections to streamline due diligence for angel investors and venture capital firms during fundraising rounds. Initial Public Offerings (IPOs): Taking a company public requires intense regulatory scrutiny. Data rooms are used to securely share company histories and financial audits with investment bankers, legal teams, and regulatory bodies. Corporate Restructuring and Insolvency: During bankruptcies or corporate carve-outs, data rooms are used to organize outstanding debt profiles, creditor agreements, and operational liabilities. == Emerging Technologies == In recent years, the management of virtual data rooms has increasingly incorporated Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). Generative AI and Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools are now integrated into VDRs to automatically index thousands of documents, perform auto-redaction of personally identifiable information (PII), and assist buy-side analysts in identifying hidden liabilities within unstructured text data during the due diligence phase. Modern AI algorithms can extract line items from financial statements to instantly populate structured databases.
MSpy
mSpy is a brand of mobile and computer parental control monitoring software for iOS, Android, Windows, and macOS. The app monitors and logs user activity on the client device and sends the data to a personalized dashboard. Data the users can monitor includes text messages, calls, GPS locations, social media chats, and more. It is owned by Virtuoso Holding. == History == mSpy was launched as a product for mobile monitoring by Altercon Group in 2010. In 2012, the application allowed parents to monitor not only smartphones but also computers running Windows and macOS. In 2013, mSpy became TopTenReviews cell phone monitoring software award winner. By 2014, the business grew nearly 400%, and the app's user numbers exceeded 1 million. In 2015, mSpy received the Parents Tested Parents Approved (PTPA) Winner’s Seal of Approval in the United States. In 2015 and 2018, mSpy was the victim of data breaches which released user data. In 2016, mLite, a light version of mSpy, became available from Google Play. The same year, it was awarded the kidSAFE Certified Seal in the United States. In 2017, mSpy collaborated with YouTuber and journalist Coby Persin to conduct a social experiment on the dangers of social media and online predators. A social experiment, conducted with parental consent, involved Coby Persin to befriend three children—aged 12, 13, and 14—via Snapchat and then invite them to meet personally. Each of the participants agreed to the meeting and arrived at the designated location. The video of the experiment received widespread attention and helped to raise awareness about the importance of online security and parental controls. In early 2021, mSpy released a new feature - Screenrecorder. The feature allows parents to take screenshots of the kid's screen when they are browsing certain apps. In 2024, mSpy's Zendesk was compromised by an unknown threat actor, revealing their customer list. As of 2025, mSpy is compatible with Android, iPhone, and iPad devices. It provides access to various types of data stored on the device, including contact information, calendar entries, emails, SMS messages, browser history, photos, videos, and installed applications. Functions also include GPS tracking, geofencing, keyword alerts etc. == Reception == It was noted that since MSpy runs inconspicuously, there is risk of the software being used illegally. mSpy was called "terrifying" by The Next Web and was featured in NPR coverage of spyware used against victims of stalking and other domestic violence. In response mSpy released security updates aimed at reducing the risk of misuse and stated that it "uses encryption protocols to protect user data and that access is restricted to the account holder". In May 2015, Brian Krebs reported that mSpy was hacked, leaking personal data for hundreds of thousands of users of devices with mSpy installed. mSpy claimed that there was no data leak, but that instead, it was the victim of blackmailers. In September 2018, Krebs claimed and demonstrated that anyone could easily gain access to the mSpy database containing data for millions of users. The company responded by stating that the exposed data consisted primarily of error logs and incorrect login attempts. Following the incident, mSpy implemented new security measures, changed encryption keys, and reset passwords for affected accounts. A 2024 Sky News story characterised mSpy as "stalkerware". Leaked customer support messages from mSpy reveal misuse of its app for illegally monitoring partners and children.
Diffbot
Diffbot is a developer of machine learning and computer vision algorithms and public APIs for extracting data from web pages / web scraping to create a knowledge base. == Overview == The company has gained interest from its application of computer vision technology to web pages, wherein it visually parses a web page for important elements and returns them in a structured format. In 2015 Diffbot announced it was working on its version of an automated "knowledge graph" by crawling the web and using its automatic web page extraction to build a large database of structured web data. In 2019 Diffbot released their Knowledge Graph which has since grown to include over two billion entities (corporations, people, articles, products, discussions, and more), and ten trillion "facts." == Features == The company's products allow software developers to analyze web home pages and article pages, and extract the "important information" while ignoring elements deemed not core to the primary content. In August 2012 the company released its Page Classifier API, which automatically categorizes web pages into specific "page types". As part of this, Diffbot analyzed 750,000 web pages shared on the social media service Twitter and revealed that photos, followed by articles and videos, are the predominant web media shared on the social network. In September 2020 the company released a Natural Language Processing API for automatically building Knowledge Graphs from text. The company raised $2 million in funding in May 2012 from investors including Andy Bechtolsheim and Sky Dayton. Diffbot's customers include Adobe, AOL, Cisco, DuckDuckGo, eBay, Instapaper, Microsoft, Onswipe and Springpad.
Reason maintenance
Reason maintenance is a knowledge representation approach to efficient handling of inferred information that is explicitly stored. Reason maintenance distinguishes between base facts, which can be defeated, and derived facts. As such it differs from belief revision which, in its basic form, assumes that all facts are equally important. Reason maintenance was originally developed as a technique for implementing problem solvers. It encompasses a variety of techniques that share a common architecture: two components—a reasoner and a reason maintenance system—communicate with each other via an interface. The reasoner uses the reason maintenance system to record its inferences and justifications of ("reasons" for) the inferences. The reasoner also informs the reason maintenance system which are the currently valid base facts (assumptions). The reason maintenance system uses the information to compute the truth value of the stored derived facts and to restore consistency if an inconsistency is derived. == Truth maintenance system == A truth maintenance system, or TMS, is a knowledge representation method for representing both beliefs and their dependencies and an algorithm called the "truth maintenance algorithm" that manipulates and maintains the dependencies. The name truth maintenance is due to the ability of these systems to restore consistency. A truth maintenance system maintains consistency between old believed knowledge and current believed knowledge in the knowledge base (KB) through revision. If the current believed statements contradict the knowledge in the KB, then the KB is updated with the new knowledge. It may happen that the same data will again be believed, and the previous knowledge will be required in the KB. If the previous data are not present, but may be required for new inference. But if the previous knowledge was in the KB, then no retracing of the same knowledge is needed. The use of TMS avoids such retracing; it keeps track of the contradictory data with the help of a dependency record. This record reflects the retractions and additions which makes the inference engine (IE) aware of its current belief set. == Algorithm == Each statement having at least one valid justification is made a part of the current belief set. When a contradiction is found, the statement(s) responsible for the contradiction are identified and the records are appropriately updated. This process is called dependency-directed backtracking. The TMS algorithm maintains the records in the form of a dependency network. Each node in the network is an entry in the KB (a premise, antecedent, or inference rule etc.) Each arc of the network represent the inference steps through which the node was derived. A premise is a fundamental belief which is assumed to be true. They do not need justifications. The set of premises are the basis from which justifications for all other nodes will be derived. == Justification == There are two types of justification for a node. They are: Support list [SL] Conditional proof (CP) == Examples == Many kinds of truth maintenance systems exist. Two major types are single-context and multi-context truth maintenance. In single context systems, consistency is maintained among all facts in memory (KB) and relates to the notion of consistency found in classical logic. Multi-context systems support paraconsistency by allowing consistency to be relevant to a subset of facts in memory, a context, according to the history of logical inference. This is achieved by tagging each fact or deduction with its logical history. Multi-agent truth maintenance systems perform truth maintenance across multiple memories, often located on different machines. de Kleer's assumption-based truth maintenance system (ATMS, 1986) was utilized in systems based upon KEE on the Lisp Machine. The first multi-agent TMS was created by Mason and Johnson. It was a multi-context system. Bridgeland and Huhns created the first single-context multi-agent system.
OntoCAPE
OntoCAPE is a large-scale ontology for the domain of Computer-Aided Process Engineering (CAPE). It can be downloaded free of charge via the OntoCAPE Homepage. OntoCAPE is partitioned into 62 sub-ontologies, which can be used individually or as an integrated suite. The sub-ontologies are organized across different abstraction layers, which separate general knowledge from knowledge about particular domains and applications. The upper layers have the character of an upper ontology, covering general topics such as mereotopology, systems theory, quantities and units. The lower layers conceptualize the domain of chemical process engineering, covering domain-specific topics such as materials, chemical reactions, or unit operations.
Snapshot isolation
In databases, and transaction processing (transaction management), snapshot isolation is a guarantee that all reads made in a transaction will see a consistent snapshot of the database (in practice it reads the last committed values that existed at the time it started), and the transaction itself will successfully commit only if no updates it has made conflict with any concurrent updates made since that snapshot. Snapshot isolation has been adopted by several major database management systems, such as InterBase, Firebird, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Anywhere, MongoDB and Microsoft SQL Server (2005 and later). The main reason for its adoption is that it allows better performance than serializability, yet still avoids most of the concurrency anomalies that serializability avoids (but not all). In practice snapshot isolation is implemented within multiversion concurrency control (MVCC), where generational values of each data item (versions) are maintained: MVCC is a common way to increase concurrency and performance by generating a new version of a database object each time the object is written, and allowing transactions' read operations of several last relevant versions (of each object). Snapshot isolation has been used to criticize the ANSI SQL-92 standard's definition of isolation levels, as it exhibits none of the "anomalies" that the SQL standard prohibited, yet is not serializable (the anomaly-free isolation level defined by ANSI). In spite of its distinction from serializability, snapshot isolation is sometimes referred to as serializable by Oracle. == Definition == A transaction executing under snapshot isolation appears to operate on a personal snapshot of the database, taken at the start of the transaction. When the transaction concludes, it will successfully commit only if the values updated by the transaction have not been changed externally since the snapshot was taken. Such a write–write conflict will cause the transaction to abort. In a write skew anomaly, two transactions (T1 and T2) concurrently read an overlapping data set (e.g. values V1 and V2), concurrently make disjoint updates (e.g. T1 updates V1, T2 updates V2), and finally concurrently commit, neither having seen the update performed by the other. Were the system serializable, such an anomaly would be impossible, as either T1 or T2 would have to occur "first", and be visible to the other. In contrast, snapshot isolation permits write skew anomalies. As a concrete example, imagine V1 and V2 are two balances held by a single person, Phil. The bank will allow either V1 or V2 to run a deficit, provided the total held in both is never negative (i.e. V1 + V2 ≥ 0). Both balances are currently $100. Phil initiates two transactions concurrently, T1 withdrawing $200 from V1, and T2 withdrawing $200 from V2. If the database guaranteed serializable transactions, the simplest way of coding T1 is to deduct $200 from V1, and then verify that V1 + V2 ≥ 0 still holds, aborting if not. T2 similarly deducts $200 from V2 and then verifies V1 + V2 ≥ 0. Since the transactions must serialize, either T1 happens first, leaving V1 = −$100, V2 = $100, and preventing T2 from succeeding (since V1 + (V2 − $200) is now −$200), or T2 happens first and similarly prevents T1 from committing. If the database is under snapshot isolation(MVCC), however, T1 and T2 operate on private snapshots of the database: each deducts $200 from an account, and then verifies that the new total is zero, using the other account value that held when the snapshot was taken. Since neither update conflicts, both commit successfully, leaving V1 = V2 = −$100, and V1 + V2 = −$200. Some systems built using multiversion concurrency control (MVCC) may support (only) snapshot isolation to allow transactions to proceed without worrying about concurrent operations, and more importantly without needing to re-verify all read operations when the transaction finally commits. This is convenient because MVCC maintains a series of recent history consistent states. The only information that must be stored during the transaction is a list of updates made, which can be scanned for conflicts fairly easily before being committed. However, MVCC systems (such as MarkLogic) will use locks to serialize writes together with MVCC to obtain some of the performance gains and still support the stronger "serializability" level of isolation. == Workarounds == Potential inconsistency problems arising from write skew anomalies can be fixed by adding (otherwise unnecessary) updates to the transactions in order to enforce the serializability property. Materialize the conflict Add a special conflict table, which both transactions update in order to create a direct write–write conflict. Promotion Have one transaction "update" a read-only location (replacing a value with the same value) in order to create a direct write–write conflict (or use an equivalent promotion, e.g. Oracle's SELECT FOR UPDATE). In the example above, we can materialize the conflict by adding a new table which makes the hidden constraint explicit, mapping each person to their total balance. Phil would start off with a total balance of $200, and each transaction would attempt to subtract $200 from this, creating a write–write conflict that would prevent the two from succeeding concurrently. However, this approach violates the normal form. Alternatively, we can promote one of the transaction's reads to a write. For instance, T2 could set V1 = V1, creating an artificial write–write conflict with T1 and, again, preventing the two from succeeding concurrently. This solution may not always be possible. In general, therefore, snapshot isolation puts some of the problem of maintaining non-trivial constraints onto the user, who may not appreciate either the potential pitfalls or the possible solutions. The upside to this transfer is better performance. == Terminology == Snapshot isolation is called "serializable" mode in Oracle and PostgreSQL versions prior to 9.1, which may cause confusion with the "real serializability" mode. There are arguments both for and against this decision; what is clear is that users must be aware of the distinction to avoid possible undesired anomalous behavior in their database system logic. == History == Snapshot isolation arose from work on multiversion concurrency control databases, where multiple versions of the database are maintained concurrently to allow readers to execute without colliding with writers. Such a system allows a natural definition and implementation of such an isolation level. InterBase, later owned by Borland, was acknowledged to provide SI rather than full serializability in version 4, and likely permitted write-skew anomalies since its first release in 1985. Unfortunately, the ANSI SQL-92 standard was written with a lock-based database in mind, and hence is rather vague when applied to MVCC systems. Berenson et al. wrote a paper in 1995 critiquing the SQL standard, and cited snapshot isolation as an example of an isolation level that did not exhibit the standard anomalies described in the ANSI SQL-92 standard, yet still had anomalous behaviour when compared with serializable transactions. In 2008, Cahill et al. showed that write-skew anomalies could be prevented by detecting and aborting "dangerous" triplets of concurrent transactions. This implementation of serializability is well-suited to multiversion concurrency control databases, and has been adopted in PostgreSQL 9.1, where it is known as Serializable Snapshot Isolation (SSI). When used consistently, this eliminates the need for the above workarounds. The downside over snapshot isolation is an increase in aborted transactions. This can perform better or worse than snapshot isolation with the above workarounds, depending on workload.
Ishikawa diagram
Ishikawa diagrams (also called fishbone diagrams, herringbone diagrams, cause-and-effect diagrams) are causal diagrams created by Kaoru Ishikawa that show the potential causes of a specific event. Common uses of the Ishikawa diagram are product design and quality defect prevention to identify potential factors causing an overall effect. Each cause or reason for imperfection is a source of variation. Causes are usually grouped into major categories to identify and classify these sources of variation. == Overview == The defect, or the problem to be solved, is shown as the fish's head, facing to the right, with the causes extending to the left as fishbones; the ribs branch off the backbone for major causes, with sub-branches for root-causes, to as many levels as required. Ishikawa diagrams were popularized in the 1960s by Kaoru Ishikawa, who pioneered quality management processes in the Kawasaki shipyards, and in the process became one of the founding fathers of modern management. The basic concept was first used in the 1920s, and is considered one of the seven basic tools of quality control. It is known as a fishbone diagram because of its shape, similar to the side view of a fish skeleton. Mazda Motors famously used an Ishikawa diagram in the development of the Miata (MX5) sports car. == Root causes == Root-cause analysis is intended to reveal key relationships among various variables, and the possible causes provide additional insight into process behavior. It shows high-level causes that lead to the problem encountered by providing a snapshot of the current situation. There can be confusion about the relationships between problems, causes, symptoms and effects. Smith highlights this and the common question “Is that a problem or a symptom?” which mistakenly presumes that problems and symptoms are mutually exclusive categories. A problem is a situation that bears improvement; a symptom is the effect of a cause: a situation can be both a problem and a symptom. At a practical level, a cause is whatever is responsible for, or explains, an effect - a factor "whose presence makes a critical difference to the occurrence of an outcome". The causes emerge by analysis, often through brainstorming sessions, and are grouped into categories on the main branches off the fishbone. To help structure the approach, the categories are often selected from one of the common models shown below, but may emerge as something unique to the application in a specific case. Each potential cause is traced back to find the root cause, often using the 5 Whys technique. Typical categories include: === The 5 Ms (used in manufacturing) === Originating with lean manufacturing and the Toyota Production System, the 5 Ms is one of the most common frameworks for root-cause analysis: Manpower / Mindpower (physical or knowledge work, includes: kaizens, suggestions) Machine (equipment, technology) Material (includes raw material, consumables, and information) Method (process) Measurement / medium (inspection, environment) These have been expanded by some to include an additional three, and are referred to as the 8 Ms: Mission / mother nature (purpose, environment) Management / money power (leadership) Maintenance === The 8 Ps (used in product marketing) === This common model for identifying crucial attributes for planning in product marketing is often also used in root-cause analysis as categories for the Ishikawa diagram: Product (or service) Price Place Promotion People (personnel) Process Physical evidence (proof) Performance === The 4 or 5 Ss (used in service industries) === An alternative used for service industries, uses four categories of possible cause: Surroundings: Refers to the environment in which the process occurs. Suppliers: Refers to external parties that provide inputs—raw materials, components, or services. Systems: Refers to the procedures, processes, and technologies used to perform the work. Skill: Refers to the human factor, particularly the knowledge and abilities of employees. Safety: Refers to physical and psychological well-being in the workplace. == Use in specific industries == The Ishikawa diagram has been widely adopted across various industries as an effective tool for root cause analysis in quality, efficiency, and safety-related issues. Its versatility allows it to be applied in both manufacturing and service contexts. In the manufacturing industry, particularly in the automotive and electronics sectors, the diagram is frequently used in continuous improvement initiatives such as Six Sigma and Lean Manufacturing. Quality teams use it to identify causes related to materials, methods, machinery, manpower, environment, and measurement, facilitating informed decision-making to reduce defects and optimize processes. In the food industry, the Ishikawa diagram is applied to analyze issues related to food safety, temperature control, cross-contamination, and regulatory compliance. Its use enables companies to identify improvement opportunities in production, packaging, and distribution stages. In the pharmaceutical sector, it is a key tool in process validation, quality control, and compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). It helps visualize factors affecting product quality from formulation to storage. It has also been successfully implemented in sectors such as aerospace, pulp and paper, construction, education, and healthcare, where it supports structured problem-solving and promotes continuous improvement and a culture of quality.