MaPS S.A. is a software editor founded in 2011 by Thierry Muller. The company is headquartered in Luxembourg. Its platform, called MaPS System, provides Data Management software for Multichannel Marketing. == History and funding == The first version of MaPS System was released under the agency Prem1um S.A. in 2005 in the partnership with Pingroom agency. In combination with MaPS System, Prem1um also provided various consulting services in Marketing, Publishing and Sales. This is where MaPS System takes its names (M stands for Marketing, P for Publishing and S for Sales). In 2011, after being successful, Prem1um S.A. decided to enable the software MaPS System to operate independently under MaPS S.A., as a separate company and editor of the software. The first financial supports were provided by Malta ICI, a Venture Capital firm, and the local partner Chameleon Invest, a seed-capital fund led by Business Angels, who invested €900,000. In a second investment round in 2014 led by Newion Investments, a Venture Capital firm, €1.4 Million were raised, thus amounting to total assets of €2.2 Million. In 2016, the company was taken over by three private investors. In 2018, after two years of continuous growth and European expansion in Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, MaPS S.A acquired Awevo, an e-commerce web agency. == Products == The services included in MaPS System range from the data centralization, Data Governance to an optimized Multichannel Marketing. The software currently includes more than 35 modules for Master Data Management, Product Information Management, Digital Asset Management, Business Process Management including catalogue Publishing features. == Certifications == In 2019, MaPS System and Awevo received "Made in Luxembourg" label, given to the companies whose services are entirely designed in Luxembourg, without any production or development offshoring. MaPS System is a member of ICT Cluster by Luxinnovation.
Artificial intelligence content detection
Artificial intelligence detection software aims to determine whether some content (text, image, video, or audio) was generated using artificial intelligence (AI). This software is often unreliable. == Accuracy issues == Many AI detection tools have been shown to be unreliable in detecting AI-generated text. In a 2023 study conducted by Weber-Wulff et al., researchers evaluated 14 detection tools including Turnitin and GPTZero and found that "all scored below 80% of accuracy and only 5 over 70%." They also found that these tools tend to have a bias for classifying texts more as human than as AI, and that accuracy of these tools worsens upon paraphrasing. === False positives === In AI content detection, a false positive is when human-written work is incorrectly flagged as AI-written. Many AI detection platforms claim to have a minimal level of false positives, with Turnitin claiming a less than 1% false positive rate. However, later research by The Washington Post produced much higher rates of 50%, though they used a smaller sample size. False positives in an academic setting frequently lead to accusations of academic misconduct, which can have serious consequences for a student's academic record. Additionally, studies have shown evidence that many AI detection models are prone to give false positives to work written by people whose first language is not English, and also to neurodivergent people. In June 2023, Janelle Shane wrote that portions of her book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You were flagged as AI-generated. === False negatives === A false negative is a failure to identify documents with AI-written text. False negatives often happen as a result of a detection software's sensitivity level or because evasive techniques were used when generating the work to make it sound more human. False negatives are less of a concern academically, since they aren't likely to lead to accusations and ramifications. Notably, Turnitin stated they have a 15% false negative rate. == Text detection == For text, this is usually done to prevent alleged plagiarism, often by detecting repetition of words as telltale signs that a text was AI-generated (including hallucinations). Detection systems may also rely on stylistic and structural regularities associated with LLM output, such as unusually consistent grammar, formulaic transitions, repeated discourse markers, and recurring rhetorical templates. Some tools are designed less to establish authorship provenance than to flag prose that resembles common LLM-generated style patterns. They are often used by teachers marking their students, usually on an ad hoc basis. Following the release of ChatGPT and similar AI text generative software, many educational establishments have issued policies against the use of AI by students. AI text detection software is also used by those assessing job applicants, as well as online search engines, hiring, online moderation and publishing. Current detectors may sometimes be unreliable and have incorrectly marked work by humans as originating from AI while failing to detect AI-generated work in other instances. MIT Technology Review said that the technology "struggled to pick up ChatGPT-generated text that had been slightly rearranged by humans and obfuscated by a paraphrasing tool". AI text detection software has also been shown to discriminate against non-native speakers of English. Two students from the University of California, Davis, were referred to the university's Office of Student Success and Judicial Affairs (OSSJA) after their professors scanned their essays with positive results; the first with an AI detector called GPTZero, and the second with an AI detector integration in Turnitin. However, following media coverage, and a thorough investigation, the students were cleared of any wrongdoing. In April 2023, Cambridge University and other members of the Russell Group of universities in the United Kingdom opted out of Turnitin's AI text detection tool, after expressing concerns it was unreliable. The University of Texas at Austin opted out of the system six months later. In May 2023, a professor at Texas A&M University–Commerce used ChatGPT to detect whether his students' content was written by it, which ChatGPT said was the case. As such, he threatened to fail the class despite ChatGPT not being able to detect AI-generated writing. No students were prevented from graduating because of the issue, and all but one student (who admitted to using the software) were exonerated from accusations of having used ChatGPT in their content. In July 2023, a paper titled "GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers" was released, reporting that GPTs discriminate against non-native English authors. The paper compared seven GPT detectors against essays from both non-native English speakers and essays from United States students. The essays from non-native English speakers had an average false positive rate of 61.3%. An article by Thomas Germain, published on Gizmodo in June 2024, reported job losses among freelance writers and journalists due to AI text detection software mistakenly classifying their work as AI-generated. In September 2024, Common Sense Media reported that generative AI detectors had a 20% false positive rate for Black students, compared to 10% of Latino students and 7% of White students. To improve the reliability of AI text detection, researchers have explored digital watermarking techniques. A 2023 paper titled "A Watermark for Large Language Models" presents a method to embed imperceptible watermarks into text generated by large language models (LLMs). This watermarking approach allows content to be flagged as AI-generated with a high level of accuracy, even when text is slightly paraphrased or modified. The technique is designed to be subtle and hard to detect for casual readers, thereby preserving readability, while providing a detectable signal for those employing specialized tools. However, while promising, watermarking faces challenges in remaining robust under adversarial transformations and ensuring compatibility across different LLMs. == Anti text detection == There is software available designed to bypass AI text detection. In practice, evasion may not require specialized bypass tools. Paraphrasing, style editing, and removal of repeated discourse markers can substantially reduce the effectiveness of detectors that rely on recognizable surface patterns. A study published in August 2023 analyzed 20 abstracts from papers published in the Eye Journal, which were then paraphrased using GPT-4.0. The AI-paraphrased abstracts were examined for plagiarism using QueText and for AI-generated content using Originality.AI. The texts were then re-processed through an adversarial software called Undetectable.ai in order to reduce the AI-detection scores. The study found that the AI detection tool, Originality.AI, identified text generated by GPT-4 with a mean accuracy of 91.3%. However, after reprocessing by Undetectable.ai, the detection accuracy of Originality.ai dropped to a mean accuracy of 27.8%. Some experts also believe that techniques like digital watermarking are ineffective because they can be removed or added to trigger false positives. "A Watermark for Large Language Models" paper by Kirchenbauer et al. (2023) also addresses potential vulnerabilities of watermarking techniques. The authors outline a range of adversarial tactics, including text insertion, deletion, and substitution attacks, that could be used to bypass watermark detection. These attacks vary in complexity, from simple paraphrasing to more sophisticated approaches involving tokenization and homoglyph alterations. The study highlights the challenge of maintaining watermark robustness against attackers who may employ automated paraphrasing tools or even specific language model replacements to alter text spans iteratively while retaining semantic similarity. Experimental results show that although such attacks can degrade watermark strength, they also come at the cost of text quality and increased computational resources. == Image, video, and audio detection == Several purported AI image detection software exist, to detect AI-generated images (for example, those originating from Midjourney or DALL-E). They are not completely reliable. Industry analyses have also noted that AI-driven image recognition systems often struggle in real-world environments, where inconsistent lighting, noise and variable visual inputs reduce detection reliability, a challenge highlighted in modern agricultural quality-control research. Others claim to identify video and audio deepfakes, but this technology is also not fully reliable yet either. Despite debate around the efficacy of watermarking, Google DeepMind is actively developing a detection software called SynthID, which works by inserting a digital watermark that is invisible to the human eye into the pixels of an image.
Short Weather Cipher
The Short Weather Cipher (German: Wetterkurzschlüssel, abbreviated WKS), also known as the weather short signal book, was a cipher, presented as a codebook, that was used by the radio telegraphists aboard U-boats of the German Navy (Kriegsmarine) during World War II. It was used to condense weather reports into a short 7-letter message, which was enciphered by using the naval Enigma and transmitted by radiomen to intercept stations on shore, where it was deciphered by Enigma and the 7-letter weather report was reconstructed. == History == During World War II, during various times, different versions of the cipher were in operation. The first issue carried the codename Weimar. It was replaced by the edition Eisenach on 20 January 1942. On 10 March 1943, the third edition of the weather key, bearing the codename Naumburg, entered into force. On May 9, 1941, during Operation Primrose, the operation to occupy Åndalsnes and create a diversion south of Trondheim in Norway as part of the Norwegian Campaign, an intact Naval Enigma (M3) cipher machine, a copy of the "Weimar" version of the short weather cipher and a copy of the short signal book (German: Kurzsignalbuch or Kurzsignale for short) was recovered from the submarine U-110, that was captured in the North Atlantic east of Cape Farewell, Greenland. This enabled the cryptanalysts in Bletchley Park to break the encryption of the M3 and to decipher the German submarine radio messages. The Short Weather Cipher was critical in the cryptanalysis of the Naval Enigma M4 and yielded excellent cribs. On 30 October 1942, a copy of the Wetterkurzschlüssel, the short weather cipher, and of the short signal book, the Kurzsignale, were recovered as part of a daring raid on the U-boat U-559, when three Royal Navy sailors, Lieutenant Anthony Fasson, Able Seaman Colin Grazier and NAAFI canteen assistant Tommy Brown, then boarded the abandoned submarine, and recovered the documents after a 90-minute search. They reached the Government Code and Cypher at Bletchley Park after a three-week delay, on 24 November 1942. The documents which cost the lives of Fasson and Grazier proved to be particularly important in breaking the Naval Enigma M4. The version of the short weather cipher recovered was the Eisenach version. Unlike the first version Weimar, the Eisenach did not list the 26 rotor positions that were indicated by a letter, to be used in enciphering weather reports. Thus, Hut 8 cryptanalysts thought that all four rotors were used to encipher weather reports. Testing on the Bombes began to surface weather kisses (identical messages in two cryptosystems). On 13 December 1942, a crib obtained using the Short Weather Cipher gave a key with the Naval Enigma M4 rotatable Umkehrwalze (reversing roller or reflector) in the neutral position, making it equivalent to a standard Enigma and thus making B-Dienst messages potentially breakable on existing bombes. Hut 8 learned that the 4-letter indicators for regular U-boat messages were the same as 3-letter indicators for weather messages the same day, except for one extra letter. This meant that once the key was found for a weather message on any day, the fourth rotor had to be only tested in 26 positions to find the full 4-letter key. By the end of the day on Sunday 13 December, Rodger Winn of the Submarine Tracking Room at Bletchley Park knew that Shark Enigma Cipher was broken. When the third edition of the short signal book was introduced on 10 March 1943, Hut 8 was immediately deprived of cribs. However, by the 19 March, cribs were again being used by Hut 8 personnel, using the method of employing short signal sighting reports. These were reports made by U-boats when contact was made with Kurzsignalheft code book. Hut 8 managed to solve Shark for 90 out of 112 days before the end of June. Kurzsignalheft short sighting reports also used M4 in M3 mode. By the end of June, four-rotor bombes had entered service at Bletchley Park, and by August had been introduced by the US Navy. From September onwards, Shark was generally solved within 24 hours. == Operation == The U-boat encoded weather reports using the Short Weather Cipher, before being enciphered on the Naval Enigma. The shore patrol of the Kriegsmarine, deciphered the message and decoded it, then forwarding it to a central meteorological station, which rebroadcast the data as ship synoptics, after enciphering it with additive tables using a cipher, which was called Germet 3 by Hut 8 personnel. The short weather cipher coded weather reports using a polyphonic single-letter code with X missing. A = +28° ◦ B = +27° ◦ C = +26° ◦ D = +25° ◦ . . . ◦ W = +6° ◦ Y= +5° ◦ Z = +4° ◦ A = +3° ◦ B = +2° ◦ C = +1° ◦ D = 0° ◦ E =−1° ◦ F =−2° ◦ . . . ◦ Z = −21° ◦ In a similar way, water temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, wind direction, wind velocity, visibility, degree of cloudiness, geographic latitude, and geographic longitude had to be coded in a prescribed order with the weather report consisted of a single short word. Based on the approximate knowledge of the position of the submarine, the Kriegsmarine telegraphist who received the message could translate the letter "S", according to the above table, which could mean 10 °C or −15 °C, back to the correct temperature. Similarly, the direction and the type of swell was also coded with only a single letter: ----------------------------------------------------- Direction from which | Type of swell the swell comes | low | middle high | high | ----------------------------------------------------- N | a | i | q | NE | b | j | r | E | c | k | s | SE | d | l | t | S | e | m | u | SW | f | n | v | W | g | o | w | NW | h | p | x | No swelling | | | | y Intermittent | | | | z As an example of the cipher, a weather report for 68° North latitude, 20° West longitude (north of Iceland) with atmospheric pressure 972 millibars, temperature minus 5 °C, wind northwest Force 6 (on the Beaufort scale), 3/10 cirrus cloud cover, visibility 5 nautical miles, would be coded as MZNFPED. == Publications == Bauer, Arthur O. (1997), Funkpeilung als alliierte Waffe gegen deutsche U-Boote 1939–1945 [Direction finding as Allied weapon against German submarines from 1939 to 1945] (in German), Diemen, NL: Selbstverlag, ISBN 978-3-00-002142-8 Bauer, Friedrich L. (2007), Decrypted Secrets. Methods and Maxims of Cryptology (4., rev. and extended ed.), Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-24502-5 Pfeiffer, Paul N. (October 1998), "Breaking the German Weather Ciphers in the Mediterranean Detachment, 849th Signal Intelligence Service", Cryptologia, 22 (4): 354–369, doi:10.1080/0161-119891886975, ISSN 0161-1194 Ulbricht, Heinz (2005), Die Chiffriermaschine Enigma – Trügerische Sicherheit. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Nachrichtendienste [The Enigma cipher machine – Deceptive security. A contribution to the history of the intelligence services], Dissertation, Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Technische Universität Braunschweig (in German)
List of cryptosystems
A cryptosystem is a set of cryptographic algorithms that map ciphertexts and plaintexts to each other. == Private-key cryptosystems == Private-key cryptosystems use the same key for encryption and decryption. Caesar cipher Substitution cipher Enigma machine Data Encryption Standard Twofish Serpent Camellia Salsa20 ChaCha20 Blowfish CAST5 Kuznyechik RC4 3DES Skipjack Safer IDEA Advanced Encryption Standard, also known as AES and Rijndael. == Public-key cryptosystems == Public-key cryptosystems use a public key for encryption and a private key for decryption. Diffie–Hellman key exchange RSA encryption Rabin cryptosystem Schnorr signature ElGamal encryption Elliptic-curve cryptography Lattice-based cryptography McEliece cryptosystem Multivariate cryptography Isogeny-based cryptography
ACTS Gigabit Satellite Network
The ACTS Gigabit Satellite Network was a pioneering, high-speed communications satellite network in the years 1993-2004, created as a prototype system to explore high-speed networking of digital endpoints. The system was jointly sponsored by NASA and ARPA, implemented by BBN Technologies and Motorola, and was inducted into the Space Technology Hall of Fame in April 1997. The Advanced Communications Technology Satellite (ACTS) network was designed to provide fiber-compatible SONET service to remote nodes and networks through a wideband satellite system, and provided long-haul, point-to-point and point-to-multipoint full-duplex SONET services, at rates up to 622 Mbit/s, over NASA's Advanced Communication Technology Satellite (ACTS). The Advanced Communications Technology Satellite itself, built and operated by Lockheed Martin, was launched on STS-51 on September 12, 1993, by the Space Shuttle Discovery, and occupied a geostationary orbit at 100° west longitude. It was the first communication satellite to operate in the 20–30 GHz frequency band (Ka band), with 30 GHz uplink and 20 GHz downlink signals. The satellite incorporated advanced on-board switching and multiple dynamically-hopping spot-beam antennas for selected areas of the United States including Hawaii. Up to 3 uplink and 3 downlink antenna beams could be active simultaneously. The ACTS network ground terminals were transportable Gigabit Earth Stations (GES) with fiber-optic SONET interfaces (OC-3 and OC-12), which also supported the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) protocol suite. The network control and management functions are distributed in the various Gigabit Earth Stations, with the operator's interface being centralized in a Network Management Terminal (NMT), which could be collocated at a GES, or anywhere in the Internet. The system was operational and used for experiments for 127 months, instead of the originally planned 24–48 months. In all, 53 terminals were built and used by more than 100 experimenters to test ACTS abilities. In Nov. 1997 a record data rate of 520 Mbit/s TCP/IP throughput was achieved using ATM between several ground stations via ACTS. On May 31, 2000 the ACTS experiments program officially came to a close, but the system continued to support experiments until it was deactivated on April 28, 2004.
CineAsset
CineAsset was a complete mastering software suite by Doremi Labs that could create and playback encrypted (Pro version) and unencrypted DCI compliant packages from virtually any source. CineAsset included a separate "Editor" application for generating Digital Cinema Packages (DCPs). CineAsset Pro added the ability to generate encrypted DCPs and Key Delivery Messages (KDMs) for any encrypted content in the database. It has since been discontinued, along with CineAsset Player. == Features == == Supported formats == === Input === Source: ==== Containers ==== AVI MOV MXF MPG TS WMV M2TS MTS MP4 MKV ==== Video Codecs ==== JPEG2000 ProRes 422 DNxHD® YUV Uncompressed 8-10 bits DIVX® XVID® MPEG4 AVC / H-264 VC-1 MPEG2 ==== Image Sequences ==== BMP TIFF TGA DPX JPG J2C ==== Audio Files ==== WAV MP3 WMA MP2 === Output === Source: ==== JPEG2000 ==== 2D and 3D at up to 4K resolution Bit Rate: 50–250 Mbit/s (500 Mbit/s for frame rates above 30 fps) Speed: Faster than real-time processing when using optional render nodes ==== MPEG2 ==== I-Only or Long GOP 1080p up to 80 Mbit/s ==== H264 ==== 1080p up to 50 Mbit/s ==== VC1 ==== DCP wrapping only (no transcode)
Social business model
The social business model is use of social media tools and social networking behavioral standards by businesses for communication with customers, suppliers, and others. Combining social networking etiquette (being helpful, transparent and authentic) with business engagement on LinkedIn (for one-to-one interaction), Twitter (for immediacy) and Facebook (for content sharing) more fully involves employees in the organization and increases customer intimacy and trust. == Overview == Traditional business models, particularly in large organizations, have had as one common characteristic careful limitation of direct contact between those within the organization and those outside of it. Only certain specific individuals (most frequently in roles such as sales, customer service and field consulting) were designated as "customer-facing" personnel. Organizations further limited outside access to internal employees through filtering mechanisms such as publishing only a main switchboard number (whether routed through a live receptionist or an interactive voice response system) and generic "sales@" or "info@" email addresses. The Cluetrain Manifesto (written by Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger and published in 1999) was among the first books to predict the demise of this old order and the emergence of more open business models, though most of the business world was slow to adopt the book's recommended cultural changes. Thirteen years later, authors Dion Hinchcliffe and Peter Kim added structural underpinnings to the cultural shifts outlined in The Cluetrain Manifesto in their book, Social Business by Design. The book details many of the ways social media tools and practices are being adopted within organizations, to support both internal employee collaboration and external customer engagement (which the authors describe as the "bigger problem"). == Elements == In implementing the social business model, organizations apply social networking protocols and tools in a range of areas, potentially including: Marketing Customer Support Recruiting Crowdsourcing Internal employee collaboration Sales Product Development Supply Chain Operations Investor Relations == Characteristics of organizations adopting the social business model == Organizations that fully adopt the social business model will exhibit four key characteristics: Connected – employees will be able to seamlessly engage one-on-one in real-time with other employees and individuals outside the organization (customers, prospects, partners, media, etc.) using a variety of communications methods including text chat, voice, file sharing, email, and video chat. Social – employees will follow social networking etiquette (being authentic, helpful and transparent) in external interactions. The focus will be on answering questions and providing information rather than overt sales or promotion. Presence – these conversations may originate on the company's website or elsewhere online (e.g., publication websites, industry portals, or social networking sites such as LinkedIn or Facebook). Intelligent – organizations will use in-depth analytics to monitor connections, social interactions and presence; measure corresponding business results; and continually adjust and improve practices for increased effectiveness. == Technical and functional requirements == While much of the change inherent in adopting the social business model is cultural, it also requires process changes enabled by social business technology. Functional requirements for a social business technology platform include: Analytics (including the cost of engagement as well as various measures of return on investment such as leads, sales, referrals, recommendations, and retained customers). Integration with other social media and business tools such as CRM systems, partner relationship management (PRM) software, product development, website analytics, and employee-recruiting applications. Rules-based workflow (e.g. routing a comment to the appropriate individual for a response, based on content). Geolocation (so customers or prospects can be automatically routed to local sales or customer service representatives). Content sharing. Collaboration tools. Transparency (i.e., people should know who they are engaging with) Unified communications (the ability to engage via voice, text, video, email, and share a wide variety of file types) Storage (the ability to store interactions for legal, training, compliance or compensation purposes, and purge stored data when no longer needed based on company policy or regulatory requirements). Immediacy (real-time monitoring and response).